https://de.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Marc+van+LeeuwenWikipedia - Benutzerbeiträge [de]2025-05-20T19:52:10ZBenutzerbeiträgeMediaWiki 1.45.0-wmf.1https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hochtemperaturelektrolyse&diff=196200543Hochtemperaturelektrolyse2016-05-25T09:17:50Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* The market for hydrogen production */ No need to link to same article twice in one paragraph</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:High-temperature electrolysis.png|right|350px|thumb|High-temperature electrolysis schema.]]<br />
'''High-temperature electrolysis''' (also '''HTE''' or '''steam electrolysis''') is a method being investigated for the production of [[hydrogen]] from water with [[oxygen]] as a by-product.<br />
<br />
==Efficiency==<br />
High temperature electrolysis is more efficient economically than traditional room-temperature [[electrolysis of water|electrolysis]] because some of the energy is supplied as heat, which is cheaper than electricity, and also because the electrolysis reaction is more efficient at higher temperatures. In fact, at 2500 °C, electrical input is unnecessary because water breaks down to hydrogen and oxygen through [[thermolysis]]. Such temperatures are impractical; proposed HTE systems operate between 100 °C and 850 °C.<ref name="Badwal 2012">{{cite journal|last=Badwal|first=SPS|author2=Giddey S |author3=Munnings C |journal=WIRES; Energy and Environment|year=2012|doi=10.1002/wene.50|url=http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WENE50.html|title=Hydrogen production via solid electrolytic routes|volume=2|issue=5|pages=473–487}}</ref><ref>[http://www.hi2h2.com/ Hi2h2 - High temperature electrolysis using SOEC]</ref><ref>[http://www.weltemp.eu/ WELTEMP-Water electrolysis at elevated temperatures]</ref><br />
<br />
The efficiency improvement of high-temperature electrolysis is best appreciated by assuming that the electricity used comes from a [[heat engine]], and then considering the amount of heat energy necessary to produce one kg hydrogen (141.86 megajoules), both in the HTE process itself and also in producing the electricity used. At 100 °C, 350 megajoules of thermal energy are required (41% efficient). At 850 °C, 225 megajoules are required (64% efficient).<br />
<br />
==Materials==<br />
The selection of the materials for the electrodes and electrolyte in a [[solid oxide electrolyser cell]] is essential. One option being investigated for the process<ref>Kazuya Yamada, Shinichi Makino, Kiyoshi Ono, Kentaro Matsunaga, Masato Yoshino, Takashi Ogawa, Shigeo Kasai, Seiji Fujiwara, and Hiroyuki Yamauchi "High Temperature Electrolysis for Hydrogen Production Using Solid Oxide Electrolyte Tubular Cells Assembly Unit", presented at AICHE Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, November 2006. <br />
[http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2006/techprogram/S3253.HTM abstract]</ref> used [[yttria-stabilized zirconia]] (YSZ) electrolytes, nickel-[[cermet]] steam/hydrogen electrodes, and mixed oxide of lanthanum, strontium and cobalt oxygen electrodes.<br />
<br />
==Economic potential==<br />
<br />
Even with HTE, electrolysis is a fairly inefficient way to store energy. Significant conversion losses of energy occur both in the electrolysis process, and in the conversion of the resulting hydrogen back into power.<br />
<br />
At current hydrocarbon prices, HTE can not compete with [[pyrolysis]] of hydrocarbons as an economical source of hydrogen. <br />
<br />
HTE is of interest as a more efficient route to the production of hydrogen, to be used as a carbon neutral fuel and general energy storage. It may become economical if cheap non-fossil fuel sources of heat (concentrating solar, nuclear, geothermal) can be used in conjunction with non-fossil fuel sources of electricity (such as solar, wind, ocean, nuclear). <br />
<br />
Possible supplies of cheap high-temperature heat for HTE are all nonchemical, including [[nuclear reactor]]s, [[solar power|concentrating solar thermal collectors]], and [[Geothermal power|geothermal]] sources. HTE has been demonstrated in a laboratory at 108&nbsp;kilojoules (thermal) per gram of hydrogen produced,<ref name="INL"><br />
{{cite press release<br />
|url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918170624.htm<br />
|title=Steam heat: researchers gear up for full-scale hydrogen plant<br />
|date=2008-09-19<br />
|publisher=[[Science Daily]]<br />
}}</ref> but not at a commercial scale.<ref><br />
{{cite web<br />
| url= http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/nuclear_energy_h2_plan.pdf<br />
| title= Nuclear hydrogen R&D plan<br />
|date=March 2004<br />
| format= PDF<br />
| work= <br />
| publisher= [[United States Department of Energy|U.S. Dept. of Energy]]<br />
| accessdate= 2008-05-09 <br />
}}</ref> The first commercial [[generation IV reactor]]s are expected around 2030.<br />
<br />
===The market for hydrogen production===<br />
<br />
Given a cheap, high-temperature heat source, other hydrogen production methods are possible. In particular, see the thermochemical [[sulfur-iodine cycle]]. Thermochemical production might reach higher efficiencies than HTE because no heat engine is required. However, large-scale thermochemical production will require significant advances in materials that can withstand high-temperature, high-pressure, highly corrosive environments. <br />
<br />
The market for hydrogen is large (50 million metric tons/year in 2004, worth about $135 billion/year) and growing at about 10% per year (see [[hydrogen economy]]). This market is met by pyrolysis of hydrocarbons to produce the hydrogen, which results in CO2 emissions. The two major consumers are oil refineries and fertilizer plants (each consumes about half of all production). Should hydrogen-powered cars become widespread, their consumption would greatly increase the demand for hydrogen in a hydrogen economy.<br />
<br />
==Electrolysis and thermodynamics==<br />
<br />
During electrolysis, the amount of electrical energy that must be added equals the change in [[Gibbs free energy]] of the reaction plus the losses in the system. The losses can (theoretically) be arbitrarily close to zero, so the maximum [[thermodynamics|thermodynamic]] efficiency of any electrochemical process equals 100%. In practice, the efficiency is given by electrical work achieved divided by the Gibbs free energy change of the reaction. <br />
<br />
In most cases, such as room temperature water electrolysis, the electric input is larger than the enthalpy change of the reaction, so some energy is released as waste heat. In the case of electrolysis of [[steam]] into hydrogen and oxygen at high temperature, the opposite is true. Heat is absorbed from the surroundings, and the [[heating value]] of the produced hydrogen is higher than the electric input. In this case the efficiency relative to electric energy input can be said to be greater than 100%. The maximum theoretical efficiency of a [[fuel cell]] is the inverse of that of electrolysis. It is thus impossible to create a [[perpetual motion]] machine by combining the two processes.<br />
<br />
==Mars ISRU==<br />
{{seealso|Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment|in-situ resource utilization}}<br />
High temperature electrolysis with [[solid oxide electrolyser cell]]s has also been proposed to produce oxygen on [[Mars]] from atmospheric carbon dioxide, using zirconia electrolysis devices.<ref name="Wall 2014">{{cite news |last=Wall |first=Mike |url=http://www.space.com/26705-nasa-2020-rover-mars-colony-tech.html |title=Oxygen-Generating Mars Rover to Bring Colonization Closer |work=Space.com |date=August 1, 2014 |accessdate=2014-11-05 }}</ref><ref name=GFSC>[http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/IPM/Final/PDF/ThursPM.pdf The Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment (MOXIE)] PDF. Presentation: MARS 2020 Mission and Instruments". November 6, 2014.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*[http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/doctor.pdf U.S. DOE high-temperature electrolysis]<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
{{electrolysis}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:High-Temperature Electrolysis}}<br />
[[Category:Electrolysis]]<br />
[[Category:Hydrogen production]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robinson-Arithmetik&diff=106106387Robinson-Arithmetik2012-01-05T11:00:55Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Metamathematics */ redundantly repeated wikilink removed</p>
<hr />
<div>In [[mathematics]], '''[[Robinson arithmetic]]''', or '''Q''', is a finitely axiomatized fragment of [[Peano arithmetic]] (PA), first set out in [[R. M. Robinson]] (1950). '''Q''' is essentially PA without the [[axiom schema]] of [[mathematical induction|induction]]. Since '''Q''' is weaker than PA, it is [[complete theory|incomplete]]. '''Q''' is important and interesting because it is a finitely axiomatized fragment of PA that is recursively incompletable and essentially [[decidability (logic)|undecidable]].<br />
<br />
==Axioms==<br />
The background logic of '''Q''' is [[first-order logic]] with [[identity (mathematics)|identity]], denoted by infix '='. The individuals, called [[natural number]]s, are members of a [[Set (mathematics)|set]] called '''N''' with a distinguished member '''0''', called [[zero]]. There are three [[operation (mathematics)|operation]]s over '''N''':<br />
<br />
*A [[unary operation]] called [[successor function|successor]] and denoted by [[Prefix (linguistics)|prefix]] ''S'';<br />
*Two [[binary operation]]s, [[addition]] and [[multiplication]], denoted by infix '''+''' and by [[concatenation]], respectively.<br />
<br />
The following [[axiom]]s for '''Q''' are Q1–Q7 in Burgess (2005: 56), and are also the first seven axioms of [[second order arithmetic]]. [[Variable (mathematics)|Variables]] not bound by an [[existential quantifier]] are bound by an implicit [[universal quantifier]].<br />
<br />
# ''Sx'' ≠ '''0'''<br />
#*'''0''' is not the successor of any number.<br />
# (''Sx'' = ''Sy'') → ''x'' = ''y'' <br />
#* If the successor of ''x'' is identical to the successor of ''y'', then ''x'' and ''y'' are identical. (1) and (2) yield the minimum of facts about '''N''' (it is an [[infinite set]] bounded by '''0''') and ''S'' (it is an [[injective function]] whose [[domain (mathematics)|domain]] is '''N''') needed for non-triviality. The [[Conversion (logic)|converse]] of (2) follows from the properties of identity.<br />
# ''y''='''0''' ∨ ∃''x'' (''Sx'' = ''y'')<br />
#* Every number is either '''0''' or the successor of some number. The [[axiom schema]] of [[mathematical induction]] present in arithmetics stronger than '''Q''' turns this axiom into a theorem.<br />
# ''x'' + '''0''' = ''x''<br />
# ''x'' + ''Sy'' = ''S''(''x'' + ''y'')<br />
#* (4) and (5) are the [[recursive definition]] of [[addition]].<br />
# ''x'''''0''' = '''0'''<br />
# ''xSy'' = (''xy'') + ''x''<br />
#* (6) and (7) are the [[recursive definition]] of [[multiplication]].<br />
<br />
===Variant axiomatizations===<br />
The axioms in Robinson (1950) are (1)–(13) in Mendelson (1997: 201). The first 6 of Robinson's 13 axioms are required only when, unlike here, the background logic does not include identity. Machover (1996: 256–57) dispenses with axiom (3).<br />
<br />
The usual strict [[total order]] on '''N''', "less than" (denoted by "<"), can be defined in terms of addition via the rule <math>x<y \leftrightarrow \exist z\,(x+Sz=y)</math> (Burgess 2005:230, fn. 24).<br />
<br />
Taking "<" as primitive requires adding four axioms to (1)–(7) above:<br />
* ¬(''x'' < 0)<br />
* 0 = ''x'' ∨ 0 < ''x''<br />
*''x'' < ''y'' ↔ (''Sx'' < ''y'' ∨ ''Sx'' = ''y'')<br />
*''x'' < ''Sy'' ↔ (''x'' < ''y'' ∨ ''x'' = ''y).<br />
<br />
==Metamathematics==<br />
On the metamathematics of '''Q''', see Boolos et al. (2002: chpt. 14), Tarski, Mostowski, and Robinson (1953), Smullyan (1991), Mendelson (1997: 201-03), and Burgess (2005: §§1.5a, 2.2). The [[intended interpretation]] of '''Q''' is the [[natural numbers]] and their usual arithmetic. Hence [[addition]] and [[multiplication]] have their customary meaning, identity is [[equality (mathematics)|equality]], {{nowrap|''Sx'' {{=}} ''x'' + 1,}} and '''0''' is the natural number [[0 (number)|zero]]. <br />
<br />
'''Q''', like [[Peano arithmetic]], has [[Non-standard model|nonstandard models]] of all infinite [[cardinality|cardinalities]]. However, unlike Peano arithmetic, [[Tennenbaum's theorem]] does not apply to '''Q''', and it has computable non-standard models. For instance, there is a computable model of '''Q''' consisting of integer-coefficient polynomials with positive leading coefficient, plus the zero polynomial, with their usual arithmetic.<br />
<br />
The defining characteristic of '''Q''' is the absence of the axiom scheme of [[mathematical induction|induction]]. Hence it is often possible to prove in '''Q''' every specific instance of a fact about the natural numbers, but not the associated general theorem. For example, 5 + 7 = 7 + 5 is provable in '''Q''', but the general statement ''x'' + ''y'' = ''y'' + ''x'' is not. Similarly, one cannot prove that ''Sx'' ≠ ''x'' (Burgess 2005:56).<br />
<br />
'''Q''' is interpretable in a fragment of [[Zermelo set theory|Zermelo's]] [[axiomatic set theory]], consisting of [[extensionality]], existence of the [[empty set]], and the [[general set theory|axiom of adjunction]]. This theory is S' in Tarski et al. (1953: 34) and ST in Burgess (2005: 90-91; 223). See [[general set theory]] for more details.<br />
<br />
'''Q''' fascinates because it is a finitely axiomatized [[list of first-order theories|first-order theory]] that is considerably weaker than [[Peano arithmetic]] (PA), and whose axioms contain only one [[existential quantifier]], yet like PA is incomplete and incompletable in the sense of [[Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem]]s, and essentially undecidable. Robinson (1950) derived the '''Q''' axioms (1)–(7) above by noting just what PA axioms are required to prove (Mendelson 1997: Th. 3.24) that every [[computable function]] is representable in PA. The only use this proof makes of the PA axiom schema of [[mathematical induction|induction]] is to prove a statement that is axiom (3) above, and so, all computable functions are representable in '''Q''' (Mendelson 1997: Th. 3.33). The conclusion of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem also holds for '''Q''': no consistent recursively axiomatized extension of '''Q''' can prove its own consistency, even if we additionally restrict Gödel numbers of proofs to a definable cut (Bezboruah and Shepherdson 1976; Pudlák 1985; Hájek & Pudlák 1993:387).<br />
<br />
The first incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic systems defining sufficient arithmetic to carry out the necessary coding constructions (of which [[Gödel numbering]] forms a part). The axioms of '''Q''' were chosen specifically to ensure they are strong enough for this purpose. Thus the usual proof of the first incompleteness theorem can be used to show that '''Q''' is incomplete and undecidable. This indicates that the incompleteness and undecidability of PA cannot be blamed on the only aspect of PA differentiating it from '''Q''', namely the [[axiom schema]] of [[mathematical induction|induction]]. <br />
<br />
Gödel's theorems do not hold when any one of the seven axioms above is dropped. These fragments of '''Q''' remain undecidable, but they are no longer essentially undecidable: they have consistent decidable extensions, as well as uninteresting models (i.e., models which do not extend the standard natural numbers).<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[General set theory]]<br />
* [[Gentzen's consistency proof]]<br />
* [[Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem]]<br />
* [[List of first-order theories]]<br />
* [[Peano axioms]]<br />
* [[Second-order arithmetic]]<br />
* [[Set-theoretic definition of natural numbers]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*A. Bezboruah and John C. Shepherdson, 1976. ''Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem for Q''. ''Journal of Symbolic Logic'' v.&nbsp;41 n.&nbsp;2, pp.&nbsp;503&ndash;512.<br />
*[[George Boolos]], John P. Burgess, and [[Richard Jeffrey]], 2002. ''Computability and Logic'', 4th ed. Cambridge University Press.<br />
*[[John P. Burgess|Burgess, John P.]], 2005. ''Fixing Frege''. Princeton University Press.<br />
*Petr Hájek and Pavel Pudlák (1998) [1993]. ''Metamathematics of first-order arithmetic'', 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag.<br />
*[[John Lucas (philosopher)|Lucas, J. R.]], 1999. ''Conceptual Roots of Mathematics''. Routledge.<br />
*Machover, Moshe, 1996. ''Set Theory, Logic, and Their Limitation''. Cambridge University Press. <br />
*Mendelson, Elliott, 1997. ''Introduction to Mathematical Logic'', 4th ed. Chapman & Hall.<br />
*Pavel Pudlák, 1985. "Cuts, consistency statements and interpretations". ''Journal of Symbolic Logic'' v.&nbsp;50 n.&nbsp;2, pp.&nbsp;423–441. <br />
*[[R. M. Robinson]], 1950, "An Essentially Undecidable Axiom System" in ''Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematics'' 1950, pp.&nbsp;729&ndash;730.<br />
*[[Raymond Smullyan]], 1991. ''Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems''. Oxford University Press.<br />
*[[Alfred Tarski]], [[A. Mostowski]], and [[R. M. Robinson]], 1953. ''Undecidable theories''. North Holland.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Formal theories of arithmetic]]<br />
<br />
[[cs:Robinsonova aritmetika]]<br />
[[fr:Arithmétique de Robinson]]<br />
[[it:Aritmetica di Robinson]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abz%C3%A4hlbares_Auswahlaxiom&diff=146973622Abzählbares Auswahlaxiom2011-05-21T08:15:01Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: clarification, as the ZermeloFraenkel-link says that theory includes the axiom of choice</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''axiom of countable choice''' or '''axiom of denumerable choice''', denoted '''AC<sub>ω</sub>''', is an [[axiom]] of [[axiomatic set theory|set theory]], similar to the [[axiom of choice]]. It states that any [[countable]] collection of [[non-empty]] sets must have a [[choice function]]. Spelled out, this means that if ''A'' is a [[function (mathematics)|function]] with [[domain (mathematics)|domain]] '''N''' (where '''N''' denotes the set of [[natural number]]s) and ''A''(''n'') is a non-empty [[set (mathematics)|set]] for every ''n''∈'''N''', then there exists a function ''f'' with domain '''N''' such that ''f''(''n'') ∈ ''A''(''n'') for every ''n''∈'''N'''. <br />
<br />
[[Paul Cohen (mathematician)|Paul Cohen]] showed that AC<sub>ω</sub> is not provable in [[Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory]] without the axiom of choice (ZF). <br />
<br />
A common misconception is that countable choice has an inductive nature and is therefore provable as a theorem (in ZF, or similar, or even weaker systems) by induction. However this is not the case; this misconception is the result of confusing countable choice with (for arbitrary n) finite choice for a finite set of size n, and it is this latter result (which is an elementary theorem in combinatorics) that is provable by induction. <br />
<br />
ZF + AC<sub>ω</sub> suffices to prove that the union of countably many countable sets is countable. It also suffices to prove that every [[infinite set]] is [[Dedekind-infinite set|Dedekind-infinite]] (equivalently: has a countably infinite subset). <br />
<br />
AC<sub>ω</sub> is particularly useful for the development of [[mathematical analysis|analysis]], where many results depend on having a choice function for a countable collection of sets of [[real number]]s. For instance, in order to prove that every [[accumulation point]] of a set ''S''⊆'''R''' is the [[limit (mathematics)|limit]] of some [[sequence]] of elements of ''S''\{''x''}, one uses (a weak form of) the axiom of countable choice. When formulated for accumulation points of arbitrary [[metric space]]s, the statement becomes equivalent to AC<sub>ω</sub>. For other statements equivalent to AC<sub>ω</sub>, see (Herrlich 1997)<ref>Horst Herrlich, [http://www.emis.de/journals/CMUC/pdf/cmuc9703/herrli.pdf Choice principles in elementary topology and analysis], ''Comment.Math.Univ.Carolinae'' 38,3 (1997), pp. 545-545</ref> and (Howard/Rubin 1998).<ref>Paul Howard and Jean E. Rubin. ''Consequences of the axiom of choice.'' Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Society, 1998.</ref><br />
<br />
AC<sub>ω</sub> is a weak form of the [[axiom of choice]] (AC). AC states that ''every'' collection of non-empty sets must have a [[choice function]]. AC clearly implies the [[axiom of dependent choice]] (DC), and DC is sufficient to show AC<sub>ω</sub>. However AC<sub>ω</sub> is strictly weaker than DC<ref>Jech T.J., ''The Axiom of Choice'', North Holland, 1973.</ref> (and DC is strictly weaker than AC).<br />
<br />
==Use==<br />
As an example of an application of AC<sub>ω</sub>, here is a proof (from ZF+AC<sub>ω</sub>) that every infinite set is Dedekind-infinite:<br />
:Let ''X'' be infinite. For each natural number ''n'', let ''A''<sub>''n''</sub> be the set of all 2<sup>''n''</sup>-element subsets of ''X''. Since ''X'' is infinite, each ''A''<sub>''n''</sub> is nonempty. A first application of AC<sub>ω</sub> yields a sequence (''B''<sub>''n''</sub> : ''n''=0,1,2,3,...) where each ''B''<sub>''n''</sub> is a subset of ''X'' with 2<sup>''n''</sup> elements.<br />
:The sets ''B''<sub>''n''</sub> are not necessarily disjoint, but we can define<br />
:: ''C''<sub>''0''</sub> = ''B''<sub>''0''</sub><br />
::''C''<sub>''n''</sub>= the difference of ''B''<sub>''n''</sub> and the union of all ''C''<sub>''j''</sub>, ''j''&lt;''n''.<br />
:Clearly each set ''C''<sub>''n''</sub> has at least 1 and at most 2<sup>''n''</sup> elements, and the sets ''C''<sub>''n''</sub> are pairwise disjoint. A second application of AC<sub>ω</sub> yields a sequence (''c''<sub>''n''</sub>: ''n''=0,1,2,...) with c<sub>''n''</sub>&isin;''C''<sub>''n''</sub>.<br />
:So all the c<sub>''n''</sub> are distinct, and ''X'' contains a countable set. The function that maps each ''c''<sub>''n''</sub> to ''c''<sub>''n''+1</sub> (and leaves all other elements of ''X'' fixed) is a 1-1 map from ''X'' into ''X'' which is not onto, proving that ''X'' is Dedekind-infinite.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{planetmath|id=6418|title=axiom of countable choice}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Axiom Of Countable Choice}}<br />
[[Category:Axiom of choice]]<br />
<br />
[[cs:Axiom spočetného výběru]]<br />
[[zh:可数选择公理]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eisensteinkriterium&diff=86885996Eisensteinkriterium2011-03-25T09:37:30Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Bemerkungen */ "normiert" ist viel zu beschrankt: nur Faktoren van Grad 0 (ganze Konstanten &gt;1) sind hier auszuschliessen</p>
<hr />
<div>Das '''Eisensteinkriterium''' oder auch '''Irreduzibilitätskriterium von Eisenstein''' ist in der [[Algebra]] ein Kriterium, um nachzuweisen, ob ein gegebenes [[Polynom]] ein [[irreduzibles Polynom]] ist. Es lassen sich damit leichter Aussagen über die Teilbarkeit von [[Polynom]]en treffen.<br /><br />
Das Kriterium ist benannt nach dem [[Mathematiker]] [[Gotthold Eisenstein]], der dazu 1850 einen öffentlichkeitswirksamen Aufsatz in [[Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik|Crelles Journal]] (Ausgabe 39) verfasste. Schon vier Jahre zuvor war es ebenda zum ersten Mal von T. Schönemann veröffentlicht worden (Ausgabe 32).<br />
<br />
== Das Kriterium ==<br />
<br />
Sei <math>P(x)</math> ein Polynom mit [[ganze Zahl|ganzzahligen]] [[Koeffizient]]en, also <math>P(x)=a_n x^n + \cdots + a_1 x+ a_0 \in \mathbb Z[x]</math>. <br />
<br />
Wenn eine [[Primzahl]] <math>p</math> existiert, die alle Koeffizienten <math>a_0</math> bis <math>a_{n-1}</math> teilt, den Koeffizienten <math>a_0</math> jedoch nicht quadratisch und <math>a_n</math> gar nicht teilt, also <br />
:<math>p \mid a_i </math> für alle <math> i < n</math>, <br />
:<math>p^2 \nmid a_0</math> und <br />
:<math>p \nmid a_n</math>, <br />
dann ist <math>P(x)</math> in <math>\mathbb Q[x]</math> irreduzibel.<br />
<br />
=== Verallgemeinerung ===<br />
<br />
Sind die Koeffizienten aus einem [[faktorieller Ring|faktoriellen Ring]] <math>F</math> und existiert ein entsprechendes [[Primelement]] <math>p \in F</math>, so ist das Polynom irreduzibel im [[Polynomring]] des [[Quotientenkörper]]s von <math>F</math>.<br />
<br />
== Bemerkungen ==<br />
* Ein Polynom, für das ein solches <math>p</math> existiert, wird auch ''Eisenstein-Polynom bezüglich'' <math>p</math> genannt.<br />
* Das Kriterium ist nur [[Notwendige und hinreichende Bedingung|hinreichend]]; auch wenn es nicht erfüllt ist, kann das Polynom irreduzibel sein. Auch die Zerlegbarkeit eines Polynoms kann damit nicht nachgewiesen werden.<br />
* Für eine Zerlegung in <math>\mathbb Z[x]</math> kann man das Kriterium wie folgt benutzen. Es gilt natûrlich: <math>P(x)</math> hat [[Inhalt (Polynom)|Inhalt]]&nbsp;1 und ist irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Q[x] \Rightarrow P(x)</math> irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Z[x]</math>. Fasst man das Polynom also als [[diophantische Gleichung]] in einer Variablen auf, so lässt sich folgern: Ist das Kriterium für <math>P(x)</math> erfüllt, so gibt es auch keine ganzzahlige Lösung der Gleichung.<br />
* Allerdings folgt aus dem [[Lemma von Gauß|Gaußschen Lemma]] auch die Umkehrung: <math>P(x)</math> irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Z[x] \Rightarrow P(x)</math> irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Q[x]</math>.<ref name="Wolfart143">Jürgen Wolfart: ''Einführung in die Algebra und Zahlentheorie''. [[Vieweg Verlag]], 1996, Seite 143, ISBN 978-3528072865.</ref><br />
<br />
== Beispiele ==<br />
<br />
* <math>x^3+6x^2+4x+2</math> ist mit obigem Kriterium irreduzibel über <math>\mathbb Q</math> (wähle <math>p=2</math>). D.h., dass die Nullstelle, die das Polynom (als reelle [[Funktion (Mathematik)|Funktion]] aufgefasst) hat, irrational sein muss.<br />
* <math>x^n-d</math> ist irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Q[x]</math>, wenn <math>d</math> eine Primzahl ist bzw. nur einfache und keine mehrfachen [[Primteiler]] hat. Insbesondere kann <math>\sqrt[n]{d} </math> für kein <math>n \geq 2</math> rational sein.<br />
* <math>x^2+4</math> erfüllt das Kriterium nicht und ist irreduzibel, <math>x^2-4</math> erfüllt das Kriterium genauso wenig, ist aber zerlegbar in <math>(x+2)(x-2)</math>.<br />
<br />
== Beweis ==<br />
Der Beweis läuft per [[Kontradiktion|Widerspruch]]: Angenommen, <math>P</math> wäre ein Eisensteinpolynom bezüglich <math>p</math> und es gäbe zwei nicht-[[konstante Funktion|konstante]] Polynome <math>Q</math> und <math>R</math> mit <math>Q \cdot R = P</math>. Da nach Voraussetzung alle <math>a_i</math> bis auf den [[Leitkoeffizient]]en <math>a_n</math> durch <math>p</math> teilbar sind, gilt folgendes [[Modulo]]-Argument: <math>P \equiv Q \cdot R \equiv a_nx^n \pmod{p}</math>. Damit müssen auch <math>Q</math> und <math>R</math> [[Monom]]e modulo <math>p</math> sein, d.&nbsp;h., auch alle ihre sonstigen Koeffizienten sind durch <math>p</math> teilbar. Insbesondere die konstanten Terme von <math>Q</math> und <math>R</math> sind jeweils durch <math>p</math> teilbar. Da aber <math> Q \cdot R =P</math> gilt, folgt mit dem [[Cauchy-Produkt]], dass der konstante Term <math>a_0</math> von <math>P</math> durch <math>p^2</math> teilbar sein muss – Widerspruch dazu, dass das Kriterium für <math>P</math> erfüllt war. Damit muss <math>P</math> irreduzibel sein, und das war gerade zu zeigen.<br />
<br />
Betrachtet man allgemein Polynome über einem faktoriellen Ring <math>F</math>, so muss das Modulo-Argument durch einen geeigneten [[Homomorphismus]] ersetzt werden, der <math>P</math> auf seine entsprechende [[Restklasse]] in <math>F/pF</math> abbildet. Da <math>F</math> faktoriell ist und <math>p</math> ein Primelement, lässt sich der Homomorphismus leicht finden. Die [[Lineare Abbildung|Linearität]] erlaubt dann analog die Folgerung, dass <math>P</math> und <math>Q</math> jeweils selbst auf ein Monom abgebildet werden.<ref>[http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreduzibles_Polynom&oldid=41533299#Beweis Irreduzibles_Polynom&oldid=41533299#Beweis] (23. Mai 2008)</ref>,<ref name="Wolfart143"/><br />
<br />
== Siehe auch ==<br />
* [[Polynomdivision]]<br />
<br />
== Einzelnachweise ==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
== Literatur ==<br />
* Jürgen Wolfart: ''Einführung in die Algebra und Zahlentheorie''. [[Vieweg Verlag]], 1996, Seite 143, ISBN 978-3528072865.<br />
<br />
[[Kategorie:Zahlentheorie]]<br />
[[Kategorie:Algebra]]<br />
[[Kategorie:Satz (Mathematik)]]<br />
<br />
[[en:Eisenstein's criterion]]<br />
[[es:Criterio de Eisenstein]]<br />
[[fr:Critère d'Eisenstein]]<br />
[[he:קריטריון איזנשטיין]]<br />
[[it:Criterio di Eisenstein]]<br />
[[nl:Criterium van Eisenstein]]<br />
[[pl:Kryterium Eisensteina]]<br />
[[pt:Critério de Eisenstein]]<br />
[[ro:Criteriul Eisenstein]]<br />
[[ru:Критерий Эйзенштейна]]<br />
[[sr:Ајзенштајнов критеријум]]<br />
[[sv:Eisensteins kriterium]]<br />
[[uk:Критерій Ейзенштейна]]<br />
[[zh:艾森斯坦判別法]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eisensteinkriterium&diff=86764501Eisensteinkriterium2011-03-22T08:51:39Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Bemerkungen */ Verweisung nach "Gauss's lemma" (englisch)</p>
<hr />
<div>Das '''Eisensteinkriterium''' oder auch '''Irreduzibilitätskriterium von Eisenstein''' ist in der [[Algebra]] ein Kriterium, um nachzuweisen, ob ein gegebenes [[Polynom]] ein [[irreduzibles Polynom]] ist. Es lassen sich damit leichter Aussagen über die Teilbarkeit von [[Polynom]]en treffen.<br /><br />
Das Kriterium ist benannt nach dem [[Mathematiker]] [[Gotthold Eisenstein]], der dazu 1850 einen öffentlichkeitswirksamen Aufsatz in [[Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik|Crelles Journal]] (Ausgabe 39) verfasste. Schon vier Jahre zuvor war es ebenda zum ersten Mal von T. Schönemann veröffentlicht worden (Ausgabe 32).<br />
<br />
== Das Kriterium ==<br />
<br />
Sei <math>P(x)</math> ein Polynom mit [[ganze Zahl|ganzzahligen]] [[Koeffizient]]en, also <math>P(x)=a_n x^n + \cdots + a_1 x+ a_0 \in \mathbb Z[x]</math>. <br />
<br />
Wenn eine [[Primzahl]] <math>p</math> existiert, die alle Koeffizienten <math>a_0</math> bis <math>a_{n-1}</math> teilt, den Koeffizienten <math>a_0</math> jedoch nicht quadratisch und <math>a_n</math> gar nicht teilt, also <br />
:<math>p \mid a_i </math> für alle <math> i < n</math>, <br />
:<math>p^2 \nmid a_0</math> und <br />
:<math>p \nmid a_n</math>, <br />
dann ist <math>P(x)</math> in <math>\mathbb Q[x]</math> irreduzibel.<br />
<br />
=== Verallgemeinerung ===<br />
<br />
Sind die Koeffizienten aus einem [[faktorieller Ring|faktoriellen Ring]] <math>F</math> und existiert ein entsprechendes [[Primelement]] <math>p \in F</math>, so ist das Polynom irreduzibel im [[Polynomring]] des [[Quotientenkörper]]s von <math>F</math>.<br />
<br />
== Bemerkungen ==<br />
* Ein Polynom, für das ein solches <math>p</math> existiert, wird auch ''Eisenstein-Polynom bezüglich'' <math>p</math> genannt.<br />
* Das Kriterium ist nur [[Notwendige und hinreichende Bedingung|hinreichend]]; auch wenn es nicht erfüllt ist, kann das Polynom irreduzibel sein. Auch die Zerlegbarkeit eines Polynoms kann damit nicht nachgewiesen werden.<br />
* Insbesondere für eine Zerlegung in <math>\mathbb Z[x]</math> kann man das Kriterium nur indirekt benutzen. Es gilt natürlich: <math>P(x)</math> normiert und irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Q[x] \Rightarrow P(x)</math> irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Z[x]</math>. Fasst man das Polynom also als [[diophantische Gleichung]] in einer Variablen auf, so lässt sich folgern: Ist das Kriterium für <math>P(x)</math> erfüllt, so gibt es auch keine ganzzahlige Lösung der Gleichung.<br />
* Allerdings lässt gilt, nach einem durch [[Gauss]] bewiesenen [[:en:Gauss's lemma (polynomial)|Lemma]] auch die Umkehrung: <math>P(x)</math> irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Z[x] \Rightarrow P(x)</math> irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Q[x]</math>.<ref name="Wolfart143">Jürgen Wolfart: ''Einführung in die Algebra und Zahlentheorie''. [[Vieweg Verlag]], 1996, Seite 143, ISBN 978-3528072865.</ref><br />
<br />
== Beispiele ==<br />
<br />
* <math>x^3+6x^2+4x+2</math> ist mit obigem Kriterium irreduzibel über <math>\mathbb Q</math> (wähle <math>p=2</math>). D.h., dass die Nullstelle, die das Polynom (als reelle [[Funktion (Mathematik)|Funktion]] aufgefasst) hat, irrational sein muss.<br />
* <math>x^n-d</math> ist irreduzibel in <math>\mathbb Q[x]</math>, wenn <math>d</math> eine Primzahl ist bzw. nur einfache und keine mehrfachen [[Primteiler]] hat. Insbesondere kann <math>\sqrt[n]{d} </math> für kein <math>n \geq 2</math> rational sein.<br />
* <math>x^2+4</math> erfüllt das Kriterium nicht und ist irreduzibel, <math>x^2-4</math> erfüllt das Kriterium genauso wenig, ist aber zerlegbar in <math>(x+2)(x-2)</math>.<br />
<br />
== Beweis ==<br />
Der Beweis läuft per [[Kontradiktion|Widerspruch]]: Angenommen, <math>P</math> wäre ein Eisensteinpolynom bezüglich <math>p</math> und es gäbe zwei nicht-[[konstante Funktion|konstante]] Polynome <math>Q</math> und <math>R</math> mit <math>Q \cdot R = P</math>. Da nach Voraussetzung alle <math>a_i</math> bis auf den [[Leitkoeffizient]]en <math>a_n</math> durch <math>p</math> teilbar sind, gilt folgendes [[Modulo]]-Argument: <math>P \equiv Q \cdot R \equiv a_nx^n \pmod{p}</math>. Damit müssen auch <math>Q</math> und <math>R</math> [[Monom]]e modulo <math>p</math> sein, d.&nbsp;h., auch alle ihre sonstigen Koeffizienten sind durch <math>p</math> teilbar. Insbesondere die konstanten Terme von <math>Q</math> und <math>R</math> sind jeweils durch <math>p</math> teilbar. Da aber <math> Q \cdot R =P</math> gilt, folgt mit dem [[Cauchy-Produkt]], dass der konstante Term <math>a_0</math> von <math>P</math> durch <math>p^2</math> teilbar sein muss – Widerspruch dazu, dass das Kriterium für <math>P</math> erfüllt war. Damit muss <math>P</math> irreduzibel sein, und das war gerade zu zeigen.<br />
<br />
Betrachtet man allgemein Polynome über einem faktoriellen Ring <math>F</math>, so muss das Modulo-Argument durch einen geeigneten [[Homomorphismus]] ersetzt werden, der <math>P</math> auf seine entsprechende [[Restklasse]] in <math>F/pF</math> abbildet. Da <math>F</math> faktoriell ist und <math>p</math> ein Primelement, lässt sich der Homomorphismus leicht finden. Die [[Lineare Abbildung|Linearität]] erlaubt dann analog die Folgerung, dass <math>P</math> und <math>Q</math> jeweils selbst auf ein Monom abgebildet werden.<ref>[http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreduzibles_Polynom&oldid=41533299#Beweis Irreduzibles_Polynom&oldid=41533299#Beweis] (23. Mai 2008)</ref>,<ref name="Wolfart143"/><br />
<br />
== Siehe auch ==<br />
* [[Polynomdivision]]<br />
<br />
== Einzelnachweise ==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
== Literatur ==<br />
* Jürgen Wolfart: ''Einführung in die Algebra und Zahlentheorie''. [[Vieweg Verlag]], 1996, Seite 143, ISBN 978-3528072865.<br />
<br />
[[Kategorie:Zahlentheorie]]<br />
[[Kategorie:Algebra]]<br />
[[Kategorie:Satz (Mathematik)]]<br />
<br />
[[en:Eisenstein's criterion]]<br />
[[es:Criterio de Eisenstein]]<br />
[[fr:Critère d'Eisenstein]]<br />
[[he:קריטריון איזנשטיין]]<br />
[[it:Criterio di Eisenstein]]<br />
[[nl:Criterium van Eisenstein]]<br />
[[pl:Kryterium Eisensteina]]<br />
[[pt:Critério de Eisenstein]]<br />
[[ro:Criteriul Eisenstein]]<br />
[[ru:Критерий Эйзенштейна]]<br />
[[sr:Ајзенштајнов критеријум]]<br />
[[sv:Eisensteins kriterium]]<br />
[[uk:Критерій Ейзенштейна]]<br />
[[zh:艾森斯坦判別法]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majorisierung&diff=167862853Majorisierung2010-05-27T04:20:49Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: straightened up a crooked phrase</p>
<hr />
<div>{{about|a partial ordering on '''''R'''''<sup>d</sup>|a function which is eventually greater than another|asymptotic analysis}}<br />
<br />
In [[mathematics]], '''majorization''' is a [[partially ordered set|partial order]] on [[vector space|vectors]] of [[real numbers]]. For a vector <math>\mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{R}^d</math>, we denote by <math>\mathbf{a}^{\downarrow}\in\mathbb{R}^d</math> the vector with the same components, but sorted in decreasing order. <br />
Given <math>\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^d</math>, we say that <br />
<math> \mathbf{a} </math> '''weakly majorizes''' (or dominates) <math> \mathbf{b} </math> written as <math> \mathbf{a} \succ_w \mathbf{b} </math> [[iff]]<br />
<br />
: <math> \sum_{i=1}^k a_i^{\downarrow} \geq \sum_{i=1}^k b_i^{\downarrow} \quad \text{for } k=1,\dots,d,</math> <br />
<br />
where <math>a^{\downarrow}_i</math> and <math>b^{\downarrow}_i</math> are the [[element (mathematics)|elements]] of <math>\mathbf{a}</math> and <math>\mathbf{b}</math>, respectively, sorted in decreasing order. <br />
Equivalently, we say that <math>\mathbf{b}</math> is '''weakly majorized''' (or dominated) by <math>\mathbf{a}</math>, denoted as <math> \mathbf{b} \prec_w \mathbf{a} </math>. <br />
<br />
If <math> \mathbf{a} \succ_w \mathbf{b} </math> and in addition <math>\sum_{i=1}^d a_i = \sum_{i=1}^d b_i</math> we say that <br />
<math> \mathbf{a} </math> '''majorizes''' (or dominates) <math> \mathbf{b} </math> written as <math> \mathbf{a} \succ \mathbf{b} </math>.<br />
Equivalently, we say that <math>\mathbf{b}</math> is '''majorized''' (or dominated) by <math>\mathbf{a}</math>, denoted as <math> \mathbf{b} \prec \mathbf{a} </math>. <br />
<br />
A function <math>f:\mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}</math> is said to be '''Schur convex''' when <math>\mathbf{a} \succ \mathbf{b}</math> implies <math>f(\mathbf{a}) \geq f(\mathbf{b})</math>. Similarly, <math>f(\mathbf{a})</math> is '''Schur concave''' when <math>\mathbf{a} \succ \mathbf{b}</math> implies <math>f(\mathbf{a}) \leq f(\mathbf{b}).</math><br />
<br />
The majorization partial order on finite sets can be generalized to the [[Lorenz ordering]], a partial order on [[cumulative distribution function|distribution functions]].<br />
<br />
==Examples== <br />
(Strong) majorization for vectors with ''n'' components: <br />
: <math><br />
\left(\frac{1}{n}, \ldots, \frac{1}{n}\right)\prec \left(\frac{1}{n-1}, \ldots, \frac{1}{n-1},0\right)<br />
\prec \cdots \prec <br />
\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}, 0, \ldots, 0\right) \prec\left(1, 0, \ldots, 0\right).<br />
</math><br />
<br />
Weak majorization for vectors with ''n'' components: <br />
: <math><br />
\left(\frac{1}{n}, \ldots, \frac{1}{n}\right)\prec_w \left(\frac{1}{n-1}, \ldots, \frac{1}{n-1},1\right).<br />
</math><br />
<br />
==Geometry of Majorization==<br />
[[File:2D_Majorization_Example.png|thumb|250px|Figure 1. 2D Majorization Example]]<br />
For <math>\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^n,</math> we have <br />
<math>\mathbf{x} \prec \mathbf{y}</math> if and only if <math>\mathbf{x}</math> is in the convex hull of all vectors obtained by permuting the coordinates of <math>\mathbf{y}</math>.<br />
<br />
Figure 1 displays the convex hull in 2D for the vector <math>\mathbf{y}=(3,\,1)</math>. Notice that the center of the convex hull, which is an interval in this case, is the vector <math>\mathbf{x}=(2,\,2)</math>. This is the "smallest" vector satisfying <math>\mathbf{x} \prec \mathbf{y}</math> for this given vector <math>\mathbf{y}</math>.<br />
<br />
[[File:3D_Majorization_Example.png|thumb|250px|Figure 2. 3D Majorization Example]]<br />
Figure 2 shows the convex hull in 3D. The center of the convex hull, which is a 2D polygon in this case, is the "smallest" vector <math>\mathbf{x}</math> satisfying <math>\mathbf{x} \prec \mathbf{y}</math> for this given vector <math>\mathbf{y}</math>.<br />
<br />
==Equivalent conditions==<br />
Each of the following statements is true if and only if <math>\mathbf{a}\succ \mathbf{b}</math>:<br />
<br />
* <math>\mathbf{b} = D\mathbf{a}</math> for some [[doubly stochastic matrix]] <math>D</math> (see Arnold,<ref name=Arnold>Barry C. Arnold. "Majorization and the Lorenz Order: A Brief Introduction". Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Statistics, vol. 43, 1987.</ref> Theorem 2.1).<br />
* From <math>\mathbf{a}</math> we can produce <math>\mathbf{b}</math> by a finite sequence of "Robin Hood operations" where we replace two elements <math>a_i</math> and <math>a_j < a_i</math> with <math>a_i-\varepsilon</math> and <math>a_j+\varepsilon</math>, respectively, for some <math>\varepsilon \in (0, a_i-a_j)</math> (see Arnold,<ref name=Arnold/> p. 11).<br />
* For every convex function <math>h:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}</math>, <math>\sum_{i=1}^d h(a_i) \geq \sum_{i=1}^d h(b_i)</math> (see Arnold,<ref name=Arnold/> Theorem 2.9).<br />
*<math> \forall t \in \mathbb{R} \quad \sum_{j=1}^d |a_j-t| \geq \sum_{j=1}^d |b_j-t|</math>. (see Nielsen and Chuang Exercise 12.17, <ref name=NielsenChuang> Nielsen and Chuang. "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information". Cambridge University Press, 2000 </ref>)<br />
<br />
== In linear algebra ==<br />
* Suppose that for two real [[Vector (geometric)|vectors]] <math>v,v' \in \mathbb{R}^d</math>, <math>v</math> majorizes <math>v'</math>. Then it can be shown that there exists a set of probabilities <math>(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_d), <br />
\sum_{i=1}^d p_i=1</math> and a set of [[permutation]]s <math>(P_1,P_2,\ldots,P_d)</math> such that <math>v'=\sum_{i=1}^d p_iP_iv</math>. Alternatively it can be shown that there exists a [[doubly stochastic matrix]] <math>D</math> such that <math>vD=v'</math><br />
<br />
*We say that a [[hermitian operator]], <math>H</math>, majorizes another, <math>H'</math>, if the set of eigenvalues of <math>H</math> majorizes that of <math>H'</math>.<br />
<br />
== In recursion theory ==<br />
Given <math>f, g : \mathbb{N} \to\mathbb{N}</math>, then <math>f</math> is said to majorize <math>g</math> if, for all <math>x</math>, <math>f(x)\geq g(x)</math>. If there is some <math>n</math> so that <math>f(x)\geq g(x)</math> for all <math>x > n</math>, then <math>f</math> is said to dominate (sometimes written "eventually dominate") <math>f</math>.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
* For positive [[integer number]]s, weak majorization is called [[Dominance order]].<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
* J. Karamata. Sur une inegalite relative aux fonctions convexes. Publ. Math. Univ. Belgrade 1, 145&ndash;158, 1932.<br />
* G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood and G. Pólya, Inequalities, 2nd edition, 1952, Cambridge University Press, London.<br />
* ''Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications'' (In preparation) Albert W. Marshall, [[Ingram Olkin]], Barry Arnold, ISBN 9780387400877<br />
* ''Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications'' (1980) Albert W. Marshall, [[Ingram Olkin]], Academic Press, ISBN 9780124737501<br />
* [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.4221v1.pdf A tribute to Marshall and Olkin's book "Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and its Applications"]<br />
* ''Quantum Computation and Quantum Information'', (2000) Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521635035<br />
* ''Matrix Analysis'' (1996) Rajendra Bhatia, Springer, ISBN 9780387948461<br />
* ''Topics in Matrix Analysis'' (1994) ~ Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 9780521467131<br />
* ''Majorization and Matrix Monotone Functions in Wireless Communications'' (2007) Eduard Jorswieck and Holger Boche, Now Publishers, ISBN: 9781601980403<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
* [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Majorization.html Majorization in MathWorld]<br />
* [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Majorization.html Majorization in PlanetMath]<br />
<br />
== Software ==<br />
* [[OCTAVE]]/[[MATLAB]] [http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/26962-majorization-check code to check majorization]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Order theory]]<br />
[[Category:Linear algebra]]<br />
<br />
[[bg:Мажоризация]]<br />
[[he:מיוריזציה]]<br />
[[ru:Мажоризация]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=0,999%E2%80%A6&diff=1274355210,999…2010-02-23T21:35:23Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Infinitesimals */ corrected some foolishness</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- NOTE: The content of this article is well-established. If you have an argument against one or more of the proofs listed here, please read the FAQ on [[Talk:0.999...]], or discuss it on [[Talk:0.999.../Arguments]]. However, please understand that the earlier, more naive proofs are not as rigorous as the later ones as they intend to appeal to intuition, and as such may require further justification to be complete. Thank you. --><br />
[[Image:999 Perspective.png|300px|right]]<br />
<br />
In [[mathematics]], the [[repeating decimal]] '''0.999…''' which may also be written as <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em"> 0.\bar{9}</math>, <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em">0.\dot{9}</math> or <math style="position:relative;top:-.2em"> 0.(9)\,\!</math>, denotes a [[real number]] equal to [[1 (number)|the number '''one''']]. In other words, the notations ''0.999…'' and ''1'' represent the same number within the real number system. [[mathematical proof|Proofs]] of this [[equality (mathematics)|equality]] have been formulated with varying degrees of [[mathematical rigour]], taking into account preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience.<br />
<br />
That certain real numbers can be represented by more than one digit string is not limited to the decimal system. The same phenomenon occurs in all [[integer]] [[radix|base]]s, and mathematicians have also quantified the ways of writing 1 in [[Non-integer representation|non-integer bases]]. Nor is this phenomenon unique to 1: every non-zero, terminating decimal has a twin with trailing 9s, such as 28.3287 and 28.3286999…. For simplicity, the terminating decimal is almost always the preferred representation, contributing to a misconception that it is the ''only'' representation. Even more generally, any [[positional numeral system]] contains infinitely many numbers with multiple representations. These various identities have been applied to better understand patterns in the decimal expansions of [[fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s and the structure of a simple [[fractal]], the [[Cantor set]]. They also occur in a classic investigation of the infinitude of the entire set of real numbers.<br />
<br />
The ''0.999...=1'' [[Equality (mathematics)|equality]] has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. In the last few decades, researchers of [[mathematics education]] have studied the reception of this equality among students, many of whom initially question or reject this equality. Many are persuaded by an [[Argument_from_authority|appeal to authority]] from textbooks and teachers, or by arithmetic reasoning as below to accept that the two are equal. However, some are often uneasy enough that they seek further justification. The students' reasoning for denying or affirming the equality is typically based on one of a few common errors triggered by [[counterintuitive]] behavior of the real numbers; for example that each real number has a unique [[decimal expansion]], that nonzero [[infinitesimal]] real numbers should exist, or that the expansion of 0.999… eventually terminates. <br />
<br />
Number systems can be constructed bearing out some of these intuitions, and in some of which the equality is false. Though these number systems are different from the standard [[real number]] system used in elementary, and most higher, mathematics. Indeed, some settings contain numbers that are "just shy" of 1; these are generally unrelated to 0.999…, but they are of considerable interest in [[mathematical analysis]].<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
0.999… is a number written in the [[decimal]] [[numeral system]], and some of the simplest proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the convenient [[arithmetic]] properties of this system. Most of decimal arithmetic—[[addition]], [[subtraction]], [[multiplication]], [[division (mathematics)|division]], and [[inequality|comparison]]—uses manipulations at the digit level that are much the same as those for [[integer]]s. As with integers, any two ''finite'' decimals with different digits mean different numbers (ignoring trailing zeros). In particular, any number of the form 0.99…9, where the 9s eventually stop, is strictly less than 1.<br />
<br />
Misinterpreting the meaning of the use of the "…" ([[ellipsis]]) in 0.999… accounts for some of the misunderstanding about its equality to 1. The use here is different from the usage in language or in 0.99…9, in which the ellipsis specifies that some ''finite'' portion is left unstated or otherwise omitted. When used to specify a [[recurring decimal]], "…" means that some ''infinite'' portion is left unstated, which can only be interpreted as a number by using the mathematical concept of [[limit of a sequence|limits]]. As a result, in conventional mathematical usage, the value assigned to the notation "0.999…" is defined to be the [[real number]] which is the [[limit of a sequence|limit]] of the [[convergent sequence]] (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, …).<br />
<br />
Unlike the case with integers and finite decimals, other notations can also express a single number in multiple ways. For example, using [[Fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s, {{frac|1|3}} = {{frac|2|6}}. Infinite decimals, however, can express the same number in at most two different ways. If there are two ways, then one of them must end with an infinite series of nines, and the other must terminate (that is, consist of a recurring series of zeros from a certain point on).<br />
<br />
There are many proofs that 0.999… = 1, of varying degrees of mathematical rigour. A short sketch of one rigorous proof can be simply stated as follows. Consider that two [[real number]]s are identical [[if and only if]] their difference is equal to zero. Most people would agree that the difference between 0.999… and 1, if it exists at all, must be very small. By considering the convergence of the sequence above, we can show that the magnitude of this difference must be smaller than any positive quantity, and it can be shown (see [[Archimedean property]] for details) that the only real number with this property is 0. Since the difference is 0 it follows that the numbers 1 and 0.999… are identical. The same argument also explains why 0.333… = {{frac|1|3}}, 0.111… = {{frac|1|9}}, etc.<br />
<br />
==Algebraic proofs{{anchor|Proofs}}{{anchor|Algebraic}}==<br />
===Fractions and long division===<br />
<br />
One reason that infinite decimals are a necessary extension of finite decimals is to represent fractions. Using [[long division]], a simple division of integers like {{frac|1|3}} becomes a recurring decimal, 0.333…, in which the digits repeat without end. This decimal yields a quick proof for 0.999… = 1. Multiplication of 3 times 3 produces 9 in each digit, so 3 × 0.333… equals 0.999…. And 3 × {{frac|1|3}} equals 1, so 0.999… = 1.<ref name="CME">cf. with the binary version of the same argument in [[Silvanus P. Thompson]], ''Calculus made easy'', St. Martin's Press, New York, 1998. ISBN 0-312-18548-0.</ref><br />
<br />
Another form of this proof multiplies {{frac|1|9}} = 0.111… by 9. Written out in equations this time:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.111\dots & = \frac{1}{9} \\<br />
9 \times 0.111\dots & = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} \\<br />
0.999\dots & = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
===Digit manipulation===<br />
<br />
When a number in decimal notation is multiplied by 10, the digits do not change but the decimal separator moves one place to the right. Thus 10 × 0.999… equals 9.999…, which is 9 greater than the original number. To see this, consider that in subtracting 0.999… from 9.999…, each of the digits after the decimal separator the result is 9 − 9, which is 0. The final step uses algebra:<ref name="CME"/><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
x &= 0.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x &= 9.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x - x &= 9.999\ldots - 0.999\ldots \\<br />
9 x &= 9 \\<br />
x &= 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
===Discussion===<br />
The validity of the digit manipulations in the above two proofs does not have to be taken on faith or as an axiom; it follows from the fundamental relationship between decimals and the numbers they represent. This relationship, which can be developed in several equivalent manners, already establishes that the decimals 0.999… and 1.000… both represent the same number.<br />
<br />
==Analytic proofs{{anchor|Analytic}}==<br />
Since the question of 0.999… does not affect the formal development of mathematics, it can be postponed until one proves the standard theorems of [[real analysis]]. One requirement is to characterize real numbers that can be written in decimal notation, consisting of an optional sign, a finite sequence of any number of digits forming an integer part, a decimal separator, and a sequence of digits forming a fractional part. For the purpose of discussing 0.999…, the integer part can be summarized as ''b''<sub>0</sub> and one can neglect negatives, so a decimal expansion has the form<br />
:<math>b_0.b_1b_2b_3b_4b_5\dots</math><br />
<br />
It is vital that the fraction part, unlike the integer part, is not limited to a finite number of digits. This is a [[positional notation]], so for example the 5 in 500 contributes ten times as much as the 5 in 50, and the 5 in 0.05 contributes one tenth as much as the 5 in 0.5.<br />
<br />
===Infinite series and sequences===<br />
{{further|[[Decimal representation]]}}<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most common development of decimal expansions is to define them as sums of [[infinite series]]. In general:<br />
:<math>b_0 . b_1 b_2 b_3 b_4 \ldots = b_0 + b_1\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right) + b_2\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + b_3\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + b_4\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^4 + \cdots .</math><br />
<br />
For 0.999… one can apply the [[convergent series|convergence]] theorem concerning [[geometric series]]:<ref>Rudin p.61, Theorem 3.26; J. Stewart p.706</ref><br />
:If <math>|r| < 1 \,\!</math> then <math>ar+ar^2+ar^3+\cdots = \frac{ar}{1-r}.</math><br />
<br />
Since 0.999… is such a sum with a common ratio <math>r=\textstyle\frac{1}{10}</math>, the theorem makes short work of the question:<br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = 9\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right) + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)}{1-{\tfrac{1}{10}}} = 1.\,</math><br />
This proof (actually, that 10 equals 9.999…) appears as early as 1770 in [[Leonhard Euler]]'s ''[[Elements of Algebra]]''.<ref>Euler p.170</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:base4 333.svg|left|thumb|200px|Limits: The unit interval, including the '''base-4''' decimal sequence (.3, .33, .333, …) converging to 1.]]<br />
The sum of a geometric series is itself a result even older than Euler. A typical 18th-century derivation used a term-by-term manipulation similar to the [[#Algebra|algebra proof]] given above, and as late as 1811, Bonnycastle's textbook ''An Introduction to Algebra'' uses such an argument for geometric series to justify the same maneuver on 0.999….<ref>Grattan-Guinness p.69; Bonnycastle p.177</ref> A 19th-century reaction against such liberal summation methods resulted in the definition that still dominates today: the sum of a series is ''defined'' to be the limit of the sequence of its partial sums. A corresponding proof of the theorem explicitly computes that sequence; it can be found in any proof-based introduction to calculus or analysis.<ref>For example, J. Stewart p.706, Rudin p.61, Protter and Morrey p.213, Pugh p.180, J.B. Conway p.31</ref><br />
<br />
A [[sequence]] (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …) has a [[limit of a sequence|limit]] ''x'' if the distance |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>| becomes arbitrarily small as ''n'' increases. The statement that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 can itself be interpreted and proven as a limit:<ref>The limit follows, for example, from Rudin p. 57, Theorem 3.20e. For a more direct approach, see also Finney, Weir, Giordano (2001) ''Thomas' Calculus: Early Transcendentals'' 10ed, Addison-Wesley, New York. Section 8.1, example 2(a), example 6(b).</ref><br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = \lim_{n\to\infty}0.\underbrace{ 99\ldots9 }_{n} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k = 1}^n\frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{10^n}\right) = 1-\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 1.\,</math><br />
<br />
The last step&nbsp;— that <math>\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{10^n} = 0</math>&nbsp;— is often justified by the axiom that the real numbers have the [[Archimedean property]]. This limit-based attitude towards 0.999… is often put in more evocative but less precise terms. For example, the 1846 textbook ''The University Arithmetic'' explains, ".999 +, continued to infinity = 1, because every annexation of a 9 brings the value closer to 1"; the 1895 ''Arithmetic for Schools'' says, "…when a large number of 9s is taken, the difference between 1 and .99999… becomes inconceivably small".<ref>Davies p.175; Smith and Harrington p.115</ref> Such [[heuristic]]s are often interpreted by students as implying that 0.999… itself is less than 1.<br />
<br />
===Nested intervals and least upper bounds===<br />
{{further|[[Nested intervals]]}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:999 Intervals C.svg|right|thumb|250px|Nested intervals: in base 3, 1 = 1.000… = 0.222…]]<br />
The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it.<br />
<br />
If a real number ''x'' is known to lie in the [[closed interval]] [0, 10] (i.e., it is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 10), one can imagine dividing that interval into ten pieces that overlap only at their endpoints: [0, 1], [1, 2], [2, 3], and so on up to [9, 10]. The number ''x'' must belong to one of these; if it belongs to [2, 3] then one records the digit "2" and subdivides that interval into [2, 2.1], [2.1, 2.2], …, [2.8, 2.9], [2.9, 3]. Continuing this process yields an infinite sequence of [[nested intervals]], labeled by an infinite sequence of digits ''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>2</sub>, ''b''<sub>3</sub>, …, and one writes<br />
:''x'' = ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>…<br />
<br />
In this formalism, the identities 1 = 0.999… and 1 = 1.000… reflect, respectively, the fact that 1 lies in both [0, 1] and [1, 2], so one can choose either subinterval when finding its digits. To ensure that this notation does not abuse the "=" sign, one needs a way to reconstruct a unique real number for each decimal. This can be done with limits, but other constructions continue with the ordering theme.<ref>Beals p.22; I. Stewart p.34</ref><br />
<br />
One straightforward choice is the [[nested intervals theorem]], which guarantees that given a sequence of nested, closed intervals whose lengths become arbitrarily small, the intervals contain exactly one real number in their [[intersection (set theory)|intersection]]. So ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is defined to be the unique number contained within all the intervals [''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub> + 1], [''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub> + 0.1], and so on. 0.999… is then the unique real number that lies in all of the intervals [0, 1], [0.9, 1], [0.99, 1], and [0.99…9, 1] for every finite string of 9s. Since 1 is an element of each of these intervals, 0.999… = 1.<ref>Bartle and Sherbert pp.60–62; Pedrick p.29; Sohrab p.46</ref><br />
<br />
The Nested Intervals Theorem is usually founded upon a more fundamental characteristic of the real numbers: the existence of [[least upper bound]]s or ''suprema''. To directly exploit these objects, one may define ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… to be the least upper bound of the set of approximants {''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>, …}.<ref>Apostol pp.9, 11–12; Beals p.22; Rosenlicht p.27</ref> One can then show that this definition (or the nested intervals definition) is consistent with the subdivision procedure, implying 0.999… = 1 again. Tom Apostol concludes,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The fact that a real number might have two different decimal representations is merely a reflection of the fact that two different sets of real numbers can have the same supremum.<ref>Apostol p.12</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==Proofs from the construction of the real numbers{{anchor|Based on the construction of the real numbers}}==<br />
{{further|[[Construction of the real numbers]]}}<br />
<br />
Some approaches explicitly define real numbers to be certain [[construction of the real numbers|structures built upon the rational numbers]], using [[axiomatic set theory]]. The [[natural number]]s&nbsp;— 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on&nbsp;— begin with 0 and continue upwards, so that every number has a successor. One can extend the natural numbers with their negatives to give all the [[integer]]s, and to further extend to ratios, giving the [[rational number]]s. These number systems are accompanied by the arithmetic of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. More subtly, they include [[order theory|ordering]], so that one number can be compared to another and found to be less than, greater than, or equal to another number.<br />
<br />
The step from rationals to reals is a major extension. There are at least two popular ways to achieve this step, both published in 1872: [[Dedekind cut]]s and [[Cauchy sequence]]s. Proofs that 0.999… = 1 which directly use these constructions are not found in textbooks on real analysis, where the modern trend for the last few decades has been to use an axiomatic analysis. Even when a construction is offered, it is usually applied towards proving the axioms of the real numbers, which then support the above proofs. However, several authors express the idea that starting with a construction is more logically appropriate, and the resulting proofs are more self-contained.<ref>The historical synthesis is claimed by Griffiths and Hilton (p.xiv) in 1970 and again by Pugh (p.10) in 2001; both actually prefer Dedekind cuts to axioms. For the use of cuts in textbooks, see Pugh p.17 or Rudin p.17. For viewpoints on logic, Pugh p.10, Rudin p.ix, or Munkres p.30</ref><br />
<br />
===Dedekind cuts===<br />
{{further|[[Dedekind cut]]}}<br />
<br />
In the [[Dedekind cut]] approach, each real number ''x'' is defined as the [[infinite set]] of all rational numbers that are less than ''x''.<ref>Enderton (p.113) qualifies this description: "The idea behind Dedekind cuts is that a real number ''x'' can be named by giving an infinite set of rationals, namely all the rationals less than ''x''. We will in effect define ''x'' to be the set of rationals smaller than ''x''. To avoid circularity in the definition, we must be able to characterize the sets of rationals obtainable in this way…"</ref> In particular, the real number 1 is the set of all rational numbers that are less than 1.<ref>Rudin pp.17–20, Richman p.399, or Enderton p.119. To be precise, Rudin, Richman, and Enderton call this cut 1*, 1<sup>−</sup>, and 1<sub>''R''</sub>, respectively; all three identify it with the traditional real number 1. Note that what Rudin and Enderton call a Dedekind cut, Richman calls a "nonprincipal Dedekind cut".</ref> Every positive decimal expansion easily determines a Dedekind cut: the set of rational numbers which are less than some stage of the expansion. So the real number 0.999… is the set of rational numbers ''r'' such that ''r'' < 0, or ''r'' < 0.9, or ''r'' < 0.99, or ''r'' is less than some other number of the form <math>\begin{align}1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^n\end{align}</math>.<ref>Richman p.399</ref> Every element of 0.999… is less than 1, so it is an element of the real number 1. Conversely, an element of 1 is a rational number<br />
<math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1\end{align}</math>, which implies <math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^b\end{align}</math>. Since 0.999… and 1 contain the same rational numbers, they are the same set: 0.999… = 1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Dedekind cuts was first published by [[Richard Dedekind]] in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2">{{cite web |url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Real_numbers_2.html |title=History topic: The real numbers: Stevin to Hilbert |author=J J O'Connor and E F Robertson |work=MacTutor History of Mathematics |month=October | year=2005 |accessdate=2006-08-30}}</ref><br />
The above approach to assigning a real number to each decimal expansion is due to an expository paper titled "Is 0.999 … = 1?" by Fred Richman in ''[[Mathematics Magazine]]'', which is targeted at teachers of collegiate mathematics, especially at the junior/senior level, and their students.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.maa.org/pubs/mm-guide.html |title=Mathematics Magazine:Guidelines for Authors |publisher=[[Mathematical Association of America]] |accessdate=2006-08-23}}</ref> Richman notes that taking Dedekind cuts in any [[dense subset]] of the rational numbers yields the same results; in particular, he uses [[decimal fraction]]s, for which the proof is more immediate: "So we see that in the traditional definition of the real numbers, the equation 0.9* = 1 is built in at the beginning."<ref>Richman pp.398–399</ref> A further modification of the procedure leads to a different structure that Richman is more interested in describing; see "[[#Alternative number systems|Alternative number systems]]" below.<br />
<br />
===Cauchy sequences===<br />
{{further|[[Cauchy sequence]]}}<br />
<br />
Another approach to constructing the real numbers uses the ordering of rationals less directly. First, the distance between ''x'' and ''y'' is defined as the absolute value |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''|, where the absolute value |''z''| is defined as the maximum of ''z'' and −''z'', thus never negative. Then the reals are defined to be the sequences of rationals that have the [[Cauchy sequence]] property using this distance. That is, in the sequence (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …), a mapping from natural numbers to rationals, for any positive rational δ there is an ''N'' such that |''x''<sub>''m''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>|&nbsp;≤&nbsp;δ for all ''m'', ''n''&nbsp;>&nbsp;''N''. (The distance between terms becomes smaller than any positive rational.)<ref>Griffiths & Hilton §24.2 "Sequences" p.386</ref><br />
<br />
If (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>) and (''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) are two Cauchy sequences, then they are defined to be equal as real numbers if the sequence (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) has the limit 0. Truncations of the decimal number ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… generate a sequence of rationals which is Cauchy; this is taken to define the real value of the number.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.388, 393</ref> Thus in this formalism the task is to show that the sequence of rational numbers<br />
:<math>\left(1 - 0, 1 - {9 \over 10}, 1 - {99 \over 100}, \dots\right)<br />
= \left(1, {1 \over 10}, {1 \over 100}, \dots \right)</math><br />
<br />
has the limit 0. Considering the ''n''th term of the sequence, for ''n''=0,1,2,…, it must therefore be shown that<br />
:<math>\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 0.</math><br />
<br />
This limit is plain;<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.395</ref> one possible proof is that for ε = ''a''/''b'' > 0 one can take ''N''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''b'' in the definition of the [[limit of a sequence]]. So again 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Cauchy sequences was first published separately by [[Eduard Heine]] and [[Georg Cantor]], also in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2" /> The above approach to decimal expansions, including the proof that 0.999… = 1, closely follows Griffiths & Hilton's 1970 work ''A comprehensive textbook of classical mathematics: A contemporary interpretation''. The book is written specifically to offer a second look at familiar concepts in a contemporary light.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.viii, 395</ref><br />
<br />
== Generalizations ==<br />
<br />
The result that 0.999… = 1 generalizes readily in two ways. First, every nonzero number with a finite decimal notation (equivalently, endless trailing 0s) has a counterpart with trailing 9s. For example, 0.24999… equals 0.25, exactly as in the special case considered. These numbers are exactly the decimal fractions, and they are [[Dense set|dense]].<ref>Petkovšek p.408</ref><br />
<br />
Second, a comparable theorem applies in each radix or [[base (mathematics)|base]]. For example, in base 2 (the [[binary numeral system]]) 0.111… equals 1, and in base 3 (the [[ternary numeral system]]) 0.222… equals 1. Textbooks of real analysis are likely to skip the example of 0.999… and present one or both of these generalizations from the start.<ref>Protter and Morrey p.503; Bartle and Sherbert p.61</ref><br />
<br />
Alternative representations of 1 also occur in non-integer bases. For example, in the [[golden ratio base]], the two standard representations are 1.000… and 0.101010…, and there are infinitely many more representations that include adjacent 1s. Generally, for [[almost all]] ''q'' between 1 and 2, there are uncountably many base-''q'' expansions of 1. On the other hand, there are still uncountably many ''q'' (including all natural numbers greater than 1) for which there is only one base-''q'' expansion of 1, other than the trivial 1.000…. This result was first obtained by [[Paul Erdős]], Miklos Horváth, and István Joó around 1990. In 1998 Vilmos Komornik and Paola Loreti determined the smallest such base, the [[Komornik–Loreti constant]] ''q'' = 1.787231650…. In this base, 1 = 0.11010011001011010010110011010011…; the digits are given by the [[Thue–Morse sequence]], which does not repeat.<ref>Komornik and Loreti p.636</ref><br />
<br />
A more far-reaching generalization addresses [[non-standard positional numeral systems|the most general positional numeral systems]]. They too have multiple representations, and in some sense the difficulties are even worse. For example:<ref>Kempner p.611; Petkovšek p.409</ref><br />
*In the [[balanced ternary]] system, <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> = 0.111… = 1.<u>111</u>….<br />
*In the reverse [[factorial number system]] (using bases 2,3,4,... for positions ''after'' the decimal point), 1 = 1.000… = 0.1234….<br />
<br />
=== Impossibility of unique representation ===<br />
<br />
That all these different number systems suffer from multiple representations for some real numbers can be attributed to a fundamental difference between the real numbers as an ordered set and collections of infinite strings of symbols, ordered [[lexicographic ordering|lexicographically]]. Indeed the following two properties account for the difficulty:<br />
<br />
* If an [[interval (mathematics)|interval]] of the [[real number]]s is [[partition of a set|partitioned]] into two non-empty parts ''L'', ''R'', such that every element of ''L'' is (strictly) less than every element of ''R'', then either ''L'' contains a largest element or ''R'' contains a smallest element, but not both.<br />
* The collection of infinite [[string (computer science)|string]]s of symbols taken from any finite "alphabet", lexicographically ordered, can be partitioned into two non-empty parts ''L'', ''R'', such that every element of ''L'' is less than every element of ''R'', while ''L'' contains a largest element ''and'' ''R'' contains a smallest element. Indeed is suffices to take two finite [[prefix (computer science)|prefix]]es (initial substrings) ''p''<sub>1</sub>, ''p''<sub>2</sub> of elements from the collection such that they differ only in their final symbol, for which symbol they have successive values, and take for ''L'' the set of all strings in the collection whose corresponding prefix is at most ''p''<sub>1</sub>, and for ''R'' the remainder, the strings in the collection whose corresponding prefix is at least ''p''<sub>2</sub>. Then ''L'' has a largest element, starting with ''p''<sub>1</sub> and choosing the largest available symbol in all following positions, while ''R'' has a smallest element obtained by following ''p''<sub>2</sub> by smallest symbol in all positions.<br />
<br />
The first point follows from basic properties of the real numbers: ''L'' has a [[supremum]] and ''R'' has an [[infimum]], which are easily seen to be equal; being a real number it either lies in ''R'' or in ''L'', but not both since ''L'' and ''R'' are supposed to be [[disjoint sets|disjoint]]. The second point generalizes the 0.999.../1.000... pair obtained for ''p''<sub>1</sub>&nbsp;=&nbsp;"0", ''p''<sub>2</sub>&nbsp;=&nbsp;"1". In fact one need not use the same alphabet for all positions (so that for instance [[mixed radix]] systems can be included) or consider the full collection of possible strings; the only important points are that at each position a [[finite set]] of symbols (which may even depend on the previous symbols) can be chosen from (this is needed to ensure maximal and minimal choices), and that making a valid choice for any position should result in a valid infinite string (so one should not allow '9' in each position while forbidding an infinite succession of '9's). Under these assumptions, the above argument shows that an [[monotonic|order preserving]] map from the collection of strings to an interval of the real numbers cannot be a [[bijection]]: either some numbers do not correspond to any string, or some of them correspond to more than one string.<br />
<br />
Marko Petkovšek has proved that for any positional system that names all the real numbers, the set of reals with multiple representations is always dense. He calls the proof "an instructive exercise in elementary [[point-set topology]]"; it involves viewing sets of positional values as [[Stone space]]s and noticing that their real representations are given by [[continuous function (topology)|continuous functions]].<ref>Petkovšek pp.410–411</ref><br />
<br />
==Applications==<br />
One application of 0.999… as a representation of 1 occurs in elementary [[number theory]]. In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation on the appearance of 9s in the repeating-decimal representations of fractions whose denominators are certain [[prime number]]s. Examples include:<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>7</sub> = 0.142857142857… and 142 + 857 = 999.<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>73</sub> = 0.0136986301369863… and 0136 + 9863 = 9999.<br />
E. Midy proved a general result about such fractions, now called ''[[Midy's theorem]]'', in 1836. The publication was obscure, and it is unclear if his proof directly involved 0.999…, but at least one modern proof by W. G. Leavitt does. If one can prove that a decimal of the form 0.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is a positive integer, then it must be 0.999…, which is then the source of the 9s in the theorem.<ref>Leavitt 1984 p.301</ref> Investigations in this direction can motivate such concepts as [[greatest common divisor]]s, [[modular arithmetic]], [[Fermat prime]]s, [[order (group theory)|order]] of [[group (mathematics)|group]] elements, and [[quadratic reciprocity]].<ref>Lewittes pp.1–3; Leavitt 1967 pp.669,673; Shrader-Frechette pp.96–98</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:Cantor base 3.svg|right|thumb|Positions of <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>, <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub>, and 1 in the [[Cantor set]]]]<br />
Returning to real analysis, the base-3 analogue 0.222… = 1 plays a key role in a characterization of one of the simplest [[fractal]]s, the middle-thirds [[Cantor set]]:<br />
*A point in the [[unit interval]] lies in the Cantor set if and only if it can be represented in ternary using only the digits 0 and 2.<br />
<br />
The ''n''th digit of the representation reflects the position of the point in the ''n''th stage of the construction. For example, the point ²⁄<sub>3</sub> is given the usual representation of 0.2 or 0.2000…, since it lies to the right of the first deletion and to the left of every deletion thereafter. The point <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> is represented not as 0.1 but as 0.0222…, since it lies to the left of the first deletion and to the right of every deletion thereafter.<ref>Pugh p.97; Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke pp.150–152. Protter and Morrey (p.507) and Pedrick (p.29) assign this description as an exercise.</ref><br />
<br />
Repeating nines also turn up in yet another of Georg Cantor's works. They must be taken into account to construct a valid proof, applying [[Cantor's diagonal argument|his 1891 diagonal argument]] to decimal expansions, of the [[uncountability]] of the unit interval. Such a proof needs to be able to declare certain pairs of real numbers to be different based on their decimal expansions, so one needs to avoid pairs like 0.2 and 0.1999… . A simple method represents all numbers with nonterminating expansions; the opposite method rules out repeating nines.<ref>Maor (p.60) and Mankiewicz (p.151) review the former method; Mankiewicz attributes it to Cantor, but the primary source is unclear. Munkres (p.50) mentions the latter method.</ref> A variant that may be closer to Cantor's original argument actually uses base 2, and by turning base-3 expansions into base-2 expansions, one can prove the uncountability of the Cantor set as well.<ref>Rudin p.50, Pugh p.98</ref><br />
<br />
==Skepticism in education==<br />
Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999… and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the [[Limit of a sequence|limit]] concept and disagreements over the nature of [[infinitesimal]]s. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:<br />
*Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a [[paradox]], which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly well-understood number 1.<ref>Bunch p.119; Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6. The last suggestion is due to Burrell (p.28): "Perhaps the most reassuring of all numbers is 1.…So it is particularly unsettling when someone tries to pass off 0.9~ as 1."</ref><br />
*Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger pp.6–7; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an [[infinitesimal]] but non-zero amount.<br />
*Some students believe that the value of a [[convergent series]] is at best an approximation, that <math>0.\bar{9} \approx 1</math>.<br />
These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive [[counterexample]]s to better understand 0.999….<br />
<br />
Many of these explanations were found by professor [[David O. Tall]], who has studied characteristics of teaching and cognition that lead to some of the misunderstandings he has encountered in his college students. Interviewing his students to determine why the vast majority initially rejected the equality, he found that "students continued to conceive of 0.999… as a sequence of numbers getting closer and closer to 1 and not a fixed value, because 'you haven’t specified how many places there are' or 'it is the nearest possible decimal below 1'".<ref>Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
<br />
Of the elementary proofs, multiplying 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> by 3 is apparently a successful strategy for convincing reluctant students that 0.999… = 1. Still, when confronted with the conflict between their belief of the first equation and their disbelief of the second, some students either begin to disbelieve the first equation or simply become frustrated.<ref>Tall 1976 pp.10–14</ref> Nor are more sophisticated methods foolproof: students who are fully capable of applying rigorous definitions may still fall back on intuitive images when they are surprised by a result in advanced mathematics, including 0.999…. For example, one real analysis student was able to prove that 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> using a [[supremum]] definition, but then insisted that 0.999… < 1 based on her earlier understanding of long division.<ref>Pinto and Tall p.5, Edwards and Ward pp.416–417</ref> Others still are able to prove that <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> = 0.333…, but, upon being confronted by the [[#Fractions|fractional proof]], insist that "logic" supersedes the mathematical calculations.<br />
<br />
[[Joseph Mazur]] tells the tale of an otherwise brilliant calculus student of his who "challenged almost everything I said in class but never questioned his calculator," and who had come to believe that nine digits are all one needs to do mathematics, including calculating the square root of 23. The student remained uncomfortable with a limiting argument that 9.99… = 10, calling it a "wildly imagined infinite growing process."<ref>Mazur pp.137–141</ref><br />
<br />
As part of Ed Dubinsky's "[[APOS theory]]" of mathematical learning, Dubinsky and his collaborators (2005) propose that students who conceive of 0.999… as a finite, indeterminate string with an infinitely small distance from 1 have "not yet constructed a complete process conception of the infinite decimal". Other students who have a complete process conception of 0.999… may not yet be able to "encapsulate" that process into an "object conception", like the object conception they have of 1, and so they view the process 0.999… and the object 1 as incompatible. Dubinsky ''et al.'' also link this mental ability of encapsulation to viewing <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> as a number in its own right and to dealing with the set of natural numbers as a whole.<ref>Dubinsky ''et al.'' 261–262</ref><br />
<br />
==In popular culture==<br />
<br />
With the rise of the [[Internet]], debates about 0.999… have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on [[newsgroup]]s and [[message board]]s, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. In the newsgroup <tt>[news:sci.math sci.math]</tt>, arguing over 0.999… is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its [[FAQ]].<ref>As observed by Richman (p.396). {{cite web |url=http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/specialnumbers/0.999eq1/ |author=Hans de Vreught | year=1994 | title=sci.math FAQ: Why is 0.9999… = 1? |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref> The FAQ briefly covers <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>, multiplication by 10, and limits, and it alludes to Cauchy sequences as well.<br />
<br />
A 2003 edition of the general-interest [[newspaper column]] ''[[The Straight Dope]]'' discusses 0.999… via <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> and limits, saying of misconceptions,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The lower primate in us still resists, saying: .999~ doesn't really represent a ''number'', then, but a ''process''. To find a number we have to halt the process, at which point the .999~ = 1 thing falls apart.<br />
<br />
Nonsense.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030711.html |title=An infinite question: Why doesn't .999~ = 1? |date=2003-07-11 |author=[[Cecil Adams]] |work=[[The Straight Dope]] |publisher=[[Chicago Reader]] |accessdate=2006-09-06}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
''The Straight Dope'' cites a discussion on its own message board that grew out of an unidentified "other message board … mostly about video games". In the same vein, the question of 0.999… proved such a popular topic in the first seven years of [[Blizzard Entertainment]]'s [[Battle.net]] forums that the company issued a "press release" on [[April Fools' Day]] 2004 that it is 1:<br />
<blockquote><br />
We are very excited to close the book on this subject once and for all. We've witnessed the heartache and concern over whether .999~ does or does not equal 1, and we're proud that the following proof finally and conclusively addresses the issue for our customers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?040401 |title=Blizzard Entertainment Announces .999~ (Repeating) = 1 |work=Press Release |publisher=Blizzard Entertainment |date=2004-04-01 |accessdate=2009-11-16}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
Two proofs are then offered, based on limits and multiplication by 10.<br />
<br />
0.999… features also in mathematical folklore, specifically in the following joke:<ref>Renteln and Dundes, p.27</ref> <br />
<blockquote><br />
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
A: 0.999999….<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==0.999... in alternative number systems==<br />
Although the real numbers form an extremely useful [[number system]], the decision to interpret the notation "0.999…" as naming a real number is ultimately a convention, and [[Timothy Gowers]] argues in ''Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction'' that the resulting identity 0.999… = 1 is a convention as well:<br />
<blockquote><br />
However, it is by no means an arbitrary convention, because not adopting it forces one either to invent strange new objects or to abandon some of the familiar rules of arithmetic.<ref>Gowers p.60</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
One can define other number systems using different rules or new objects; in some such number systems, the above proofs would need to be reinterpreted and one might find that, in a given number system, 0.999… and 1 might not be identical. However, many number systems are extensions of&nbsp;— rather than independent alternatives to&nbsp;— the real number system, so 0.999… = 1 continues to hold. Even in such number systems, though, it is worthwhile to examine alternative number systems, not only for how 0.999… behaves (if, indeed, a number expressed as "0.999…" is both meaningful and unambiguous), but also for the behavior of related phenomena. If such phenomena differ from those in the real number system, then at least one of the assumptions built into the system must break down.<br />
<br />
===Infinitesimals===<br />
{{main|Infinitesimal}}<br />
<br />
Some proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the [[Archimedean property]] of the standard real numbers: there are no nonzero [[infinitesimal]]s. There are mathematically coherent ordered [[algebraic structure]]s, including various alternatives to standard reals, which are non-Archimedean. The meaning of 0.999… depends on which structure we use. For example, the [[dual number]]s include a new infinitesimal element ε, analogous to the imaginary unit ''i'' in the [[complex number]]s except that ε²&nbsp;=&nbsp;0. The resulting structure is useful in [[automatic differentiation]]. The dual numbers can be given a [[lexicographic order]], in which case the multiples of ε become non-Archimedean elements.<ref>Berz 439–442</ref> Note, however, that, as an extension of the real numbers, the dual numbers still have 0.999…=1. On a related note, while ε exists in dual numbers, so does ε/2, so ε is not "the smallest positive dual number," and, indeed, as in the reals, no such number exists.<br />
<br />
[[Non-standard analysis]] provides a number system with a full array of infinitesimals (and their inverses).<ref>For a full treatment of non-standard numbers see for example Robinson's ''Non-standard Analysis''.</ref> A.H. Lightstone developed a decimal expansion for the non-standard real numbers in (0, 1)<sup>∗</sup>.<ref>Lightstone pp.245–247</ref> Lightstone shows how to associate to each extended real number a sequence of digits<br />
:0.d<sub>1</sub>d<sub>2</sub>d<sub>3</sub>…;…d<sub>∞−1</sub>d<sub>∞</sub>d<sub>∞+1</sub>…<br />
indexed by the extended natural numbers. While he does not directly discuss 0.999…, he shows the real number 1/3 is represented by 0.333…;…333… which is a consequence of the [[transfer principle]]. Multiplying by 3, one obtains analogous facts for expansions with repeating 9s.<br />
The hyperreal number ''u''<sub>''H''</sub>=0.999…;…999000… with ''H''-infinitely many 9s, for some infinite [[hyperinteger]] ''H'', satisfies a strict inequality ''u''<sub>''H''</sub> < 1.{{Fact|date=January 2009}} Indeed, the sequence u<sub>1</sub>=0.9, u<sub>2</sub>=0.99, u<sub>3</sub>=0.999, etc. satisfies u<sub>''n''</sub> = 1 − 10<sup>−''n''</sup>, hence by the transfer principle u<sub>''H''</sub> = 1 − 10<sup>−''H''</sup> &lt; 1. Lightstone shows that in this system 0.333...;...000... and 0.999...;...000... are not numbers. <br />
<br />
Karin Katz and [[Mikhail Katz]] have developed an alternative to the unital evaluation of the symbol "0.999..." The alternative evaluation is <br />
:<math>.\underset{[\mathbb{N}]}{\underbrace{999\ldots}}\; = 1\;-\;\frac{1}{10^{[\mathbb{N}]}}</math>, <br />
where <math>\langle\mathbb{N}\rangle</math> is the sequence <math>\langle1,2,3,\ldots\rangle</math> listing all the natural numbers in increasing order, while <math>[\mathbb{N}]</math> is the infinite [[hypernatural]] represented by the sequence, in the [[ultrapower]] construction; see Katz & Katz (2010).<br />
<br />
[[Combinatorial game theory]] provides alternative reals as well, with infinite Blue-Red [[Hackenbush]] as one particularly relevant example. In 1974, [[Elwyn Berlekamp]] described a correspondence between [[Hackenbush strings]] and binary expansions of real numbers, motivated by the idea of [[data compression]]. For example, the value of the Hackenbush string LRRLRLRL… is 0.010101<sub>2</sub>…&nbsp;=&nbsp;<sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub>. However, the value of LRLLL… (corresponding to 0.111…<sub>2</sub>) is infinitesimally less than 1. The difference between the two is the [[surreal number]] <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>, where ω is the first [[ordinal number|infinite ordinal]]; the relevant game is LRRRR… or 0.000…<sub>2</sub>.<ref>Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy (pp.79–80, 307–311) discuss 1 and <sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub> and touch on <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>. The game for 0.111…<sub>2</sub> follows directly from Berlekamp's Rule, and it is discussed by {{cite web |url=http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ |title=Hackenstrings and the 0.999… ≟ 1 FAQ |author=A. N. Walker |year=1999 |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
===Breaking subtraction===<br />
Another manner in which the proofs might be undermined is if 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… simply does not exist, because subtraction is not always possible. Mathematical structures with an addition operation but not a subtraction operation include [[commutative]] [[semigroup]]s, [[commutative monoid]]s and [[semiring]]s. Richman considers two such systems, designed so that 0.999… < 1.<br />
<br />
First, Richman defines a nonnegative ''decimal number'' to be a literal decimal expansion. He defines the [[lexicographical order]] and an addition operation, noting that 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 simply because 0&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 in the ones place, but for any nonterminating ''x'', one has 0.999…&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''. So one peculiarity of the decimal numbers is that addition cannot always be cancelled; another is that no decimal number corresponds to <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>. After defining multiplication, the decimal numbers form a positive, totally ordered, commutative semiring.<ref>Richman pp.397–399</ref><br />
<br />
In the process of defining multiplication, Richman also defines another system he calls "cut ''D''", which is the set of Dedekind cuts of decimal fractions. Ordinarily this definition leads to the real numbers, but for a decimal fraction ''d'' he allows both the cut (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;) and the "principal cut" (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;]. The result is that the real numbers are "living uneasily together with" the decimal fractions. Again 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1. There are no positive infinitesimals in cut ''D'', but there is "a sort of negative infinitesimal," 0<sup>−</sup>, which has no decimal expansion. He concludes that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;0<sup>−</sup>, while the equation "0.999… + ''x'' = 1"<br />
has no solution.<ref>Richman pp.398–400. Rudin (p.23) assigns this alternative construction (but over the rationals) as the last exercise of Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
===''p''-adic numbers===<br />
{{main|p-adic number}}<br />
<br />
When asked about 0.999…, novices often believe there should be a "final 9," believing 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… to be a positive number which they write as "0.000…1". Whether or not that makes sense, the intuitive goal is clear: adding a 1 to the last 9 in 0.999… would carry all the 9s into 0s and leave a 1 in the ones place. Among other reasons, this idea fails because there is no "last 9" in 0.999….<ref>Gardiner p.98; Gowers p.60</ref> However, there is a system that contains an infinite string of 9s including a last 9.<br />
<br />
[[Image:4adic 333.svg|right|thumb|200px|The 4-adic integers (black points), including the sequence (3, 33, 333, …) converging to −1. The 10-adic analogue is …999 = −1.]]<br />
<br />
The [[p-adic number|''p''-adic number]]s are an alternative number system of interest in [[number theory]]. Like the real numbers, the ''p''-adic numbers can be built from the rational numbers via [[Cauchy sequence]]s; the construction uses a different metric in which 0 is closer to ''p'', and much closer to ''p<sup>n</sup>'', than it is to 1. The ''p''-adic numbers form a [[field (algebra)|field]] for prime ''p'' and a [[ring (mathematics)|ring]] for other ''p'', including 10. So arithmetic can be performed in the ''p''-adics, and there are no infinitesimals.<br />
<br />
In the 10-adic numbers, the analogues of decimal expansions run to the left. The 10-adic expansion …999 does have a last 9, and it does not have a first 9. One can add 1 to the ones place, and it leaves behind only 0s after carrying through: 1&nbsp;+&nbsp;…999&nbsp;=&nbsp;…000&nbsp;=&nbsp;0, and so …999&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1.<ref name="Fjelstad11">Fjelstad p.11</ref> Another derivation uses a geometric series. The infinite series implied by "…999" does not converge in the real numbers, but it converges in the 10-adics, and so one can re-use the familiar formula:<br />
:<math>\ldots999 = 9 + 9(10) + 9(10)^2 + 9(10)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9}{1-10} = -1.</math><ref>Fjelstad pp.14–15</ref><br />
<br />
(Compare with the series [[#Infinite series and sequences|above]].) A third derivation was invented by a seventh-grader who was doubtful over her teacher's limiting argument that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 but was inspired to take the multiply-by-10 proof [[#Digit manipulation|above]] in the opposite direction: if ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;…999 then 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp; …990, so 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;9, hence ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1 again.<ref name="Fjelstad11" /><br />
<br />
As a final extension, since {{nowrap begin}}0.999… = 1{{nowrap end}} (in the reals) and {{nowrap begin}}…999 = −1{{nowrap end}} (in the 10-adics), then by "blind faith and unabashed juggling of symbols"<ref>DeSua p.901</ref> one may add the two equations and arrive at {{nowrap begin}}…999.999… = 0.{{nowrap end}} This equation does not make sense either as a 10-adic expansion or an ordinary decimal expansion, but it turns out to be meaningful and true if one develops a theory of "double-decimals" with eventually repeating left ends to represent a familiar system: the real numbers.<ref>DeSua pp.902–903</ref><br />
<br />
==Related questions==<br />
<!--[[Intuitionism]] should be worked in somewhere and explained, not necessarily here.--><br />
* [[Zeno's paradoxes]], particularly the paradox of the runner, are reminiscent of the apparent paradox that 0.999… and 1 are equal. The runner paradox can be mathematically modelled and then, like 0.999…, resolved using a geometric series. However, it is not clear if this mathematical treatment addresses the underlying metaphysical issues Zeno was exploring.<ref>Wallace p.51, Maor p.17</ref><br />
* [[Division by zero]] occurs in some popular discussions of 0.999…, and it also stirs up contention. While most authors choose to define 0.999…, almost all modern treatments leave division by zero undefined, as it can be given no meaning in the standard real numbers. However, division by zero is defined in some other systems, such as [[complex analysis]], where the [[extended complex plane]], i.e. the [[Riemann sphere]], has a "[[point at infinity]]". Here, it makes sense to define <sup>1</sup>/<sub>0</sub> to be infinity;<ref>See, for example, J.B. Conway's treatment of Möbius transformations, pp.47–57</ref> and, in fact, the results are profound and applicable to many problems in engineering and physics. Some prominent mathematicians argued for such a definition long before either number system was developed.<ref>Maor p.54</ref><br />
* [[Negative zero]] is another redundant feature of many ways of writing numbers. In number systems, such as the real numbers, where "0" denotes the additive identity and is neither positive nor negative, the usual interpretation of "−0" is that it should denote the additive inverse of 0, which forces −0&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.<ref>Munkres p.34, Exercise 1(c)</ref> Nonetheless, some scientific applications use separate positive and negative zeroes, as do some of the most common computer number systems (for example integers stored in the [[sign and magnitude]] or [[one's complement]] formats, or floating point numbers as specified by the [[IEEE floating-point standard]]).<ref>{{cite book |author=Kroemer, Herbert; Kittel, Charles |title=Thermal Physics |edition=2e |publisher=W. H. Freeman |year=1980 |isbn=0-7167-1088-9 |page=462}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/csspec/html/vclrfcsharpspec_4_1_6.asp |title=Floating point types |work=[[Microsoft Developer Network|MSDN]] C# Language Specification |accessdate=2006-08-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
{{Col-begin}}<br />
{{Col-1-of-3}}<br />
* [[Decimal representation]]<br />
* [[Infinity]]<br />
{{Col-2-of-3}}<br />
* [[Limit (mathematics)]]<br />
* [[Informal mathematics|Naive mathematics]]<br />
* [[Non-standard analysis]]<br />
{{Col-3-of-3}}<br />
* [[Real analysis]]<br />
* [[Series (mathematics)]]<br />
<br />
{{col-end}}<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{refbegin|colwidth=30em}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke |year=1996 |title=Chaos: An introduction to dynamical systems |chapter=4.1 Cantor Sets |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94677-2}}<br />
*:This introductory textbook on dynamical systems is aimed at undergraduate and beginning graduate students. (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Apostol |first=Tom M. |year=1974 |title=Mathematical analysis |edition=2e |publisher=Addison-Wesley |isbn=0-201-00288-4}}<br />
*:A transition from calculus to advanced analysis, ''Mathematical analysis'' is intended to be "honest, rigorous, up to date, and, at the same time, not too pedantic." (pref.) Apostol's development of the real numbers uses the least upper bound axiom and introduces infinite decimals two pages later. (pp.9–11)<br />
*{{cite book |author=Bartle, R.G. and D.R. Sherbert |year=1982 |title=Introduction to real analysis |publisher=Wiley |isbn=0-471-05944-7}}<br />
*:This text aims to be "an accessible, reasonably paced textbook that deals with the fundamental concepts and techniques of real analysis." Its development of the real numbers relies on the supremum axiom. (pp.vii-viii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Beals |first=Richard |title=Analysis |year=2004 |publisher=Cambridge UP |isbn=0-521-60047-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=[[Elwyn Berlekamp|Berlekamp, E.R.]]; [[John Horton Conway|J.H. Conway]]; and [[Richard K. Guy|R.K. Guy]] |year=1982 |title=[[Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays]] |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=0-12-091101-9}}<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Berz |first=Martin |title=Automatic differentiation as nonarchimedean analysis |year=1992 |booktitle=Computer Arithmetic and Enclosure Methods |publisher=Elsevier |pages=439–450 |url=http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/berz92automatic.html}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Bunch |first=Bryan H. |title=Mathematical fallacies and paradoxes |year=1982 |publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold |isbn=0-442-24905-5}}<br />
*:This book presents an analysis of paradoxes and fallacies as a tool for exploring its central topic, "the rather tenuous relationship between mathematical reality and physical reality". It assumes first-year high-school algebra; further mathematics is developed in the book, including geometric series in Chapter 2. Although 0.999… is not one of the paradoxes to be fully treated, it is briefly mentioned during a development of Cantor's diagonal method. (pp.ix-xi, 119)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Burrell |first=Brian |title=Merriam-Webster's Guide to Everyday Math: A Home and Business Reference |year=1998 |publisher=Merriam-Webster |isbn=0-87779-621-1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Conway |first=John B. |authorlink=John B. Conway |title=Functions of one complex variable I |edition=2e |publisher=Springer-Verlag |origyear=1973 |year=1978 |isbn=0-387-90328-3}}<br />
*:This text assumes "a stiff course in basic calculus" as a prerequisite; its stated principles are to present complex analysis as "An Introduction to Mathematics" and to state the material clearly and precisely. (p.vii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Davies |first=Charles |year=1846 |title=The University Arithmetic: Embracing the Science of Numbers, and Their Numerous Applications |publisher=A.S. Barnes |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02026287&pg=PA175}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=DeSua |first=Frank C. |title=A system isomorphic to the reals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=67 |number=9 |month=November |year=1960 |pages=900–903 |doi=10.2307/2309468 |issue=9}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Dubinsky, Ed, Kirk Weller, Michael McDonald, and Anne Brown |title=Some historical issues and paradoxes regarding the concept of infinity: an APOS analysis: part 2 |journal=Educational Studies in Mathematics |year=2005 |volume=60 |pages=253–266 |doi=10.1007/s10649-005-0473-0}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Edwards, Barbara and Michael Ward |year=2004 |month=May |title=Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=111 |number=5 |pages=411–425 |url=http://www.wou.edu/~wardm/FromMonthlyMay2004.pdf |doi=10.2307/4145268|format=PDF |issue=5}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Enderton |first=Herbert B. |year=1977 |title=Elements of set theory |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=0-12-238440-7}}<br />
*:An introductory undergraduate textbook in set theory that "presupposes no specific background". It is written to accommodate a course focusing on axiomatic set theory or on the construction of number systems; the axiomatic material is marked such that it may be de-emphasized. (pp.xi-xii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Euler |first=Leonhard |authorlink=Leonhard Euler |origyear=1770 |year=1822 |edition=3rd English |title=Elements of Algebra |editor=John Hewlett and Francis Horner, English translators. |publisher=Orme Longman |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=X8yv0sj4_1YC&pg=PA170 |isbn=0387960147}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Fjelstad |first=Paul |title=The repeating integer paradox |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=26 |number=1 |month=January |year=1995 |pages=11–15 |doi=10.2307/2687285 |issue=1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gardiner |first=Anthony |title=Understanding Infinity: The Mathematics of Infinite Processes |origyear=1982 |year=2003 |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-42538-X}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gowers |first=Timothy|authorlink= William Timothy Gowers|title=Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction |year=2002 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-285361-9}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Grattan-Guinness |first=Ivor |year=1970 |title=The development of the foundations of mathematical analysis from Euler to Riemann |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=0-262-07034-0}}<br />
*{{cite book | last=Griffiths | first=H.B. | coauthors=P.J. Hilton | title=A Comprehensive Textbook of Classical Mathematics: A Contemporary Interpretation | year=1970 | publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold | location=London | isbn=0-442-02863-6. {{LCC|QA37.2|G75}}}}<br />
*:This book grew out of a course for [[Birmingham]]-area [[grammar school]] mathematics teachers. The course was intended to convey a university-level perspective on [[mathematics education|school mathematics]], and the book is aimed at students "who have reached roughly the level of completing one year of specialist mathematical study at a university". The real numbers are constructed in Chapter 24, "perhaps the most difficult chapter in the entire book", although the authors ascribe much of the difficulty to their use of [[ideal theory]], which is not reproduced here. (pp.vii, xiv)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Kempner |first=A.J. |title=Anormal Systems of Numeration |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=43 |number=10 |month=December |year=1936 |pages=610–617 |doi=10.2307/2300532 |issue=10 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Komornik, Vilmos; and Paola Loreti |title=Unique Developments in Non-Integer Bases |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=105 |number=7 |year=1998 |pages=636–639 |doi=10.2307/2589246 |issue=7 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=A Theorem on Repeating Decimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=74 |number=6 |year=1967 |pages=669–673 |doi=10.2307/2314251 |issue=6 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=Repeating Decimals |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=15 |number=4 |month=September |year=1984 |pages=299–308 |doi=10.2307/2686394 |issue=4 }}<br />
*{{cite web | url=http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0605182 |title=Midy's Theorem for Periodic Decimals |last=Lewittes |first=Joseph |work=New York Number Theory Workshop on Combinatorial and Additive Number Theory |year=2006 |publisher=[[arXiv]]}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Lightstone |first=A.H. |title=Infinitesimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |year=1972 |volume=79 |number=3 |month=March |pages=242–251 |doi=10.2307/2316619 |issue=3 }}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mankiewicz |first=Richard |year=2000 |title=The story of mathematics|publisher=Cassell |isbn=0-304-35473-2}}<br />
*:Mankiewicz seeks to represent "the history of mathematics in an accessible style" by combining visual and qualitative aspects of mathematics, mathematicians' writings, and historical sketches. (p.8)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Maor |first=Eli |title=To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite |year=1987 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=3-7643-3325-1}}<br />
*:A topical rather than chronological review of infinity, this book is "intended for the general reader" but "told from the point of view of a mathematician". On the dilemma of rigor versus readable language, Maor comments, "I hope I have succeeded in properly addressing this problem." (pp.x-xiii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mazur |first=Joseph |title=Euclid in the Rainforest: Discovering Universal Truths in Logic and Math |year=2005 |publisher=Pearson: Pi Press |isbn=0-13-147994-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Munkres |first=James R. |title=Topology |year=2000 |origyear=1975 |edition=2e |publisher=Prentice-Hall |isbn=0-13-181629-2}}<br />
*:Intended as an introduction "at the senior or first-year graduate level" with no formal prerequisites: "I do not even assume the reader knows much set theory." (p.xi) Munkres' treatment of the reals is axiomatic; he claims of bare-hands constructions, "This way of approaching the subject takes a good deal of time and effort and is of greater logical than mathematical interest." (p.30)<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Núñez |first=Rafael |title=Do Real Numbers Really Move? Language, Thought, and Gesture: The Embodied Cognitive Foundations of Mathematics |year=2006 |booktitle=18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics |publisher=Springer |pages=160–181 |url=http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/publications.html | id=ISBN 978-0-387-25717-4}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pedrick |first=George |title=A First Course in Analysis |year=1994 |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94108-8}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Petkovšek |first=Marko |title=Ambiguous Numbers are Dense |journal=[[American Mathematical Monthly]] |volume=97 |number=5 |month=May |year=1990 |pages=408–411 |doi=10.2307/2324393 |issue=5 }}<br />
*{{cite conference |author=Pinto, Márcia and David Tall |title=Following students' development in a traditional university analysis course |booktitle=PME25 |pages=v4: 57–64 |year=2001 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001j-pme25-pinto-tall.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Protter, M.H. and [[Charles B. Morrey, Jr.|C.B. Morrey]] |year=1991 |edition=2e |title=A first course in real analysis |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-97437-7}}<br />
*:This book aims to "present a theoretical foundation of analysis that is suitable for students who have completed a standard course in calculus." (p.vii) At the end of Chapter 2, the authors assume as an axiom for the real numbers that bounded, nodecreasing sequences converge, later proving the nested intervals theorem and the least upper bound property. (pp.56–64) Decimal expansions appear in Appendix 3, "Expansions of real numbers in any base". (pp.503–507)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pugh |first=Charles Chapman |title=Real mathematical analysis |year=2001 |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=0-387-95297-7}}<br />
*:While assuming familiarity with the rational numbers, Pugh introduces [[Dedekind cut]]s as soon as possible, saying of the axiomatic treatment, "This is something of a fraud, considering that the entire structure of analysis is built on the real number system." (p.10) After proving the least upper bound property and some allied facts, cuts are not used in the rest of the book.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Renteln, Paul and Allan Dundes |year=2005 |month=January |title=Foolproof: A Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humor |journal=[[Notices of the AMS]] |volume=52 |number=1 |pages=24–34 |url=http://www.ams.org/notices/200501/fea-dundes.pdf|doi=|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |first=Fred |last=Richman |year=1999 |month=December |title=Is 0.999… = 1? |journal=[[Mathematics Magazine]] |volume=72 |issue=5 |pages=396–400 }} Free HTML preprint: {{cite web |url=http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm |first=Fred|last=Richman|title=Is 0.999… = 1? |date=1999-06-08 |accessdate=2006-08-23}} Note: the journal article contains material and wording not found in the preprint.<br />
*{{cite book |last=Robinson |first=Abraham |authorlink=Abraham Robinson |title=Non-standard analysis |year=1996 |edition=Revised |publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=0-691-04490-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rosenlicht |first=Maxwell |year=1985 |title=Introduction to Analysis |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-65038-3}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rudin |first=Walter |authorlink=Walter Rudin |title=Principles of mathematical analysis |edition=3e |year=1976 |origyear=1953 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=0-07-054235-X}}<br />
*:A textbook for an advanced undergraduate course. "Experience has convinced me that it is pedagogically unsound (though logically correct) to start off with the construction of the real numbers from the rational ones. At the beginning, most students simply fail to appreciate the need for doing this. Accordingly, the real number system is introduced as an ordered field with the least-upper-bound property, and a few interesting applications of this property are quickly made. However, Dedekind's construction is not omitted. It is now in an Appendix to Chapter 1, where it may be studied and enjoyed whenever the time is ripe." (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Shrader-Frechette |first=Maurice |title=Complementary Rational Numbers |journal=Mathematics Magazine |volume=51 |number=2 |month=March |year=1978 |pages=90–98 }}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Smith, Charles and Charles Harrington |year=1895 |title=Arithmetic for Schools |publisher=Macmillan |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02029670&pg=PA115}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Sohrab |first=Houshang |title=Basic Real Analysis |year=2003 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=0-8176-4211-0}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=Ian |title=The Foundations of Mathematics |year=1977 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-853165-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=James |title=Calculus: Early transcendentals |edition=4e |year=1999 |publisher=Brooks/Cole |isbn=0-534-36298-2}}<br />
*:This book aims to "assist students in discovering calculus" and "to foster conceptual understanding". (p.v) It omits proofs of the foundations of calculus.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=D.O. Tall and R.L.E. Schwarzenberger |title=Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits |journal=Mathematics Teaching |year=1978 |volume=82 |pages=44–49 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1978c-with-rolph.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |authorlink=David O. Tall |title=Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics |journal=Mathematical Education for Teaching |year=1976/7 |volume=2 |number=4 |pages=2–18 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1976a-confl-catastrophy.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |title=Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology |journal=Mathematics Education Research Journal |year=2000 |volume=12 |number=3 |pages=210–230 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001b-merj-amt.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book|last=von Mangoldt|first=Dr. Hans|authorlink =Hans Carl Friedrich von Mangoldt| title=Einführung in die höhere Mathematik|edition=1st|year=1911|publisher=Verlag von S. Hirzel| location=Leipzig|language=German|chapter=Reihenzahlen}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Wallace |first=David Foster|authorlink =David Foster Wallace |title=Everything and more: a compact history of infinity |year=2003 |publisher=Norton |isbn=0-393-00338-8}}<br />
{{refend}}<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
{{Spoken Wikipedia|0.999....ogg|2006-10-19}}<br />
{{commons|0.999...}}<br />
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/999999.shtml .999999… = 1?] from [[cut-the-knot]]<br />
* [http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html Why does 0.9999… = 1 ?]<br />
* [http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99167.htm Ask A Scientist: Repeating Decimals]<br />
* [http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.00/joan2.html Proof of the equality based on arithmetic]<br />
* [http://descmath.com/diag/nines.html Repeating Nines]<br />
* [http://qntm.org/pointnine Point nine recurring equals one]<br />
* [http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/themes/limits-infinity.html David Tall's research on mathematics cognition]<br />
* [http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html What is so wrong with thinking of real numbers as infinite decimals?]<br />
* [http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/0.999....html Theorem 0.999...] on [[Metamath]]<br />
* [http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ Hackenstrings, and the 0.999... ?= 1 FAQ]<br />
* [http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-friendly-chat-about-whether-0-999-1/ A Friendly Chat About Whether 0.999… = 1]<br />
*Katz, K.; [[Mikhail Katz|Katz, M.]] (2010) When is .999... less than 1? [[The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast]], Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3--30. http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/vol7no1/<br />
<br />
{{featured article}}<br />
<br />
<!-- [[en:0.999...]] --><br />
<br />
[[Category:One]]<br />
[[Category:Mathematics paradoxes]]<br />
[[Category:Real analysis]]<br />
[[Category:Real numbers]]<br />
[[Category:Numeration]]<br />
[[Category:Articles containing proofs]]<br />
<br />
{{Link FA|hu}}<br />
{{Link FA|ja}}<br />
{{Link FA|zh}}<br />
<br />
[[ar:0.999...]]<br />
[[be:0,(9)]]<br />
[[be-x-old:0,(9)]]<br />
[[bg:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ca:0,999...]]<br />
[[da:0,999...]]<br />
[[de:Eins#Periodischer Dezimalbruch]]<br />
[[el:0,999...]]<br />
[[es:0,9 periódico]]<br />
[[eo:0,999...]]<br />
[[fa:۰٫۹۹۹…]]<br />
[[fr:Développement décimal de l'unité]]<br />
[[ko:0.999…]]<br />
[[id:0,999...]]<br />
[[it:0,999...]]<br />
[[he:0.999...]]<br />
[[ka:0.999...]]<br />
[[lv:0,999...]]<br />
[[hu:0,999…]]<br />
[[ml:0.999...]]<br />
[[ms:0.999...]]<br />
[[nl:Repeterende breuk#Repeterende negens]]<br />
[[ja:0.999...]]<br />
[[no:0,999...]]<br />
[[nov:0.999...]]<br />
[[uz:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pl:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pt:0,999...]]<br />
[[ro:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ru:0,(9)]]<br />
[[sl:0,999...]]<br />
[[fi:0,999...]]<br />
[[sv:0,999...]]<br />
[[ta:0.999...]]<br />
[[th:0.999...]]<br />
[[tr:0,999...]]<br />
[[vi:0,999...]]<br />
[[yo:0.999...]]<br />
[[zh:0.999…]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=0,999%E2%80%A6&diff=1274355130,999…2010-02-13T17:03:06Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Impossibility of unique representation */ oops, with finite choice for first symbol, better mention an interval</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- NOTE: The content of this article is well-established. If you have an argument against one or more of the proofs listed here, please read the FAQ on [[Talk:0.999...]], or discuss it on [[Talk:0.999.../Arguments]]. However, please understand that the earlier, more naive proofs are not as rigorous as the later ones as they intend to appeal to intuition, and as such may require further justification to be complete. Thank you. --><br />
[[Image:999 Perspective.png|300px|right]]<br />
<br />
In [[mathematics]], the [[repeating decimal]] '''0.999…''' which may also be written as <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em"> 0.\bar{9}</math>, <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em">0.\dot{9}</math> or <math style="position:relative;top:-.2em"> 0.(9)\,\!</math>, denotes a [[real number]] equal to [[1 (number)|the number '''one''']]. In other words, the notations ''0.999…'' and ''1'' represent the same number within the real number system. [[mathematical proof|Proofs]] of this [[equality (mathematics)|equality]] have been formulated with varying degrees of [[mathematical rigour]], taking into account preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience.<br />
<br />
That certain real numbers can be represented by more than one digit string is not limited to the decimal system. The same phenomenon occurs in all [[integer]] [[radix|base]]s, and mathematicians have also quantified the ways of writing 1 in [[Non-integer representation|non-integer bases]]. Nor is this phenomenon unique to 1: every non-zero, terminating decimal has a twin with trailing 9s, such as 28.3287 and 28.3286999…. For simplicity, the terminating decimal is almost always the preferred representation, contributing to a misconception that it is the ''only'' representation. Even more generally, any [[positional numeral system]] contains infinitely many numbers with multiple representations. These various identities have been applied to better understand patterns in the decimal expansions of [[fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s and the structure of a simple [[fractal]], the [[Cantor set]]. They also occur in a classic investigation of the infinitude of the entire set of real numbers.<br />
<br />
The ''0.999...=1'' [[Equality (mathematics)|equality]] has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. In the last few decades, researchers of [[mathematics education]] have studied the reception of this equality among students, many of whom initially question or reject this equality. Many are persuaded by an [[Argument_from_authority|appeal to authority]] from textbooks and teachers, or by arithmetic reasoning as below to accept that the two are equal. However, some are often uneasy enough that they seek further justification. The students' reasoning for denying or affirming the equality is typically based on one of a few common errors triggered by [[counterintuitive]] behavior of the real numbers; for example that each real number has a unique [[decimal expansion]], that nonzero [[infinitesimal]] real numbers should exist, or that the expansion of 0.999… eventually terminates. <br />
<br />
Number systems can be constructed bearing out some of these intuitions, and in some of which the equality is false. Though these number systems are different to the standard [[real number]] system used in elementary, and most higher, mathematics. Indeed, some settings contain numbers that are "just shy" of 1; these are generally unrelated to 0.999…, but they are of considerable interest in [[mathematical analysis]].<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
0.999… is a number written in the [[decimal]] [[numeral system]], and some of the simplest proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the convenient [[arithmetic]] properties of this system. Most of decimal arithmetic—[[addition]], [[subtraction]], [[multiplication]], [[division (mathematics)|division]], and [[inequality|comparison]]—uses manipulations at the digit level that are much the same as those for [[integer]]s. As with integers, any two ''finite'' decimals with different digits mean different numbers (ignoring trailing zeros). In particular, any number of the form 0.99…9, where the 9s eventually stop, is strictly less than 1.<br />
<br />
Misinterpreting the meaning of the use of the "…" ([[ellipsis]]) in 0.999… accounts for some of the misunderstanding about its equality to 1. The use here is different from the usage in language or in 0.99…9, in which the ellipsis specifies that some ''finite'' portion is left unstated or otherwise omitted. When used to specify a [[recurring decimal]], "…" means that some ''infinite'' portion is left unstated, which can only be interpreted as a number by using the mathematical concept of [[limit of a sequence|limits]]. As a result, in conventional mathematical usage, the value assigned to the notation "0.999…" is defined to be the [[real number]] which is the [[limit of a sequence|limit]] of the [[convergent sequence]] (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, …).<br />
<br />
Unlike the case with integers and finite decimals, other notations can also express a single number in multiple ways. For example, using [[Fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s, {{frac|1|3}} = {{frac|2|6}}. Infinite decimals, however, can express the same number in at most two different ways. If there are two ways, then one of them must end with an infinite series of nines, and the other must terminate (that is, consist of a recurring series of zeros from a certain point on).<br />
<br />
There are many proofs that 0.999… = 1, of varying degrees of mathematical rigour. A short sketch of one rigorous proof can be simply stated as follows. Consider that two [[real number]]s are identical [[if and only if]] their difference is equal to zero. Most people would agree that the difference between 0.999… and 1, if it exists at all, must be very small. By considering the convergence of the sequence above, we can show that the magnitude of this difference must be smaller than any positive quantity, and it can be shown (see [[Archimedean property]] for details) that the only real number with this property is 0. Since the difference is 0 it follows that the numbers 1 and 0.999… are identical. The same argument also explains why 0.333… = {{frac|1|3}}, 0.111… = {{frac|1|9}}, etc.<br />
<br />
==Proofs==<br />
===Algebraic===<br />
====Fractions and long division====<br />
<br />
One reason that infinite decimals are a necessary extension of finite decimals is to represent fractions. Using [[long division]], a simple division of integers like {{frac|1|3}} becomes a recurring decimal, 0.333…, in which the digits repeat without end. This decimal yields a quick proof for 0.999… = 1. Multiplication of 3 times 3 produces 9 in each digit, so 3 × 0.333… equals 0.999…. And 3 × {{frac|1|3}} equals 1, so 0.999… = 1.<ref name="CME">cf. with the binary version of the same argument in [[Silvanus P. Thompson]], ''Calculus made easy'', St. Martin's Press, New York, 1998. ISBN 0-312-18548-0.</ref><br />
<br />
Another form of this proof multiplies {{frac|1|9}} = 0.111… by 9.<br />
<br />
:{| style="wikitable"<br />
|<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.333\dots &{} = \frac{1}{3} \\<br />
3 \times 0.333\dots &{} = 3 \times \frac{1}{3} = \frac{3 \times 1}{3} \\<br />
0.999\dots &{} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
|width="25px"|<br />
|width="25px" style="border-left:1px solid silver;"|<br />
|<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.111\dots & {} = \frac{1}{9} \\<br />
9 \times 0.111\dots & {} = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} = \frac{9 \times 1}{9} \\<br />
0.999\dots & {} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
|}<br />
<br />
A more compact version of the same proof is given by the following equations:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
1 = \frac{9}{9} = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} = 9 \times 0.111\dots = 0.999\dots<br />
</math><br />
<br />
Since both equations are valid, 0.999… must equal 1 (by the [[transitive property]]). Similarly, {{frac|3|3}} = 1, and {{frac|3|3}} = 0.999…. So, 0.999… must equal 1.<br />
<br />
====Digit manipulation====<br />
<br />
Another kind of proof more easily adapts to other repeating decimals. When a number in decimal notation is multiplied by 10, the digits do not change but the decimal separator moves one place to the right. Thus 10 × 0.999… equals 9.999…, which is 9 greater than the original number.<br />
<br />
To see this, consider that subtracting 0.999… from 9.999… can proceed digit by digit; in each of the digits after the decimal separator the result is 9 − 9, which is 0. But trailing zeros do not change a number, so the difference is exactly 9. The final step uses algebra:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
x &= 0.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x &= 9.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x - x &= 9.999\ldots - 0.999\ldots \\<br />
9 x &= 9 \\<br />
x &= 1 \\<br />
0.999\ldots &= 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The validity of the digit manipulations in the above two proofs does not have to be taken on faith or as an axiom; it follows from the fundamental relationship between decimals and the numbers they represent. This relationship, which can be developed in several equivalent manners, already establishes that the decimals 0.999… and 1.000… both represent the same number.<br />
<br />
===Analytic===<br />
Since the question of 0.999… does not affect the formal development of mathematics, it can be postponed until one proves the standard theorems of [[real analysis]]. One requirement is to characterize real numbers that can be written in decimal notation, consisting of an optional sign, a finite sequence of any number of digits forming an integer part, a decimal separator, and a sequence of digits forming a fractional part. For the purpose of discussing 0.999…, the integer part can be summarized as ''b''<sub>0</sub> and one can neglect negatives, so a decimal expansion has the form<br />
:<math>b_0.b_1b_2b_3b_4b_5\dots</math><br />
<br />
It is vital that the fraction part, unlike the integer part, is not limited to a finite number of digits. This is a [[positional notation]], so for example the 5 in 500 contributes ten times as much as the 5 in 50, and the 5 in 0.05 contributes one tenth as much as the 5 in 0.5.<br />
<br />
====Infinite series and sequences====<br />
{{further|[[Decimal representation]]}}<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most common development of decimal expansions is to define them as sums of [[infinite series]]. In general:<br />
:<math>b_0 . b_1 b_2 b_3 b_4 \ldots = b_0 + b_1\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right) + b_2\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + b_3\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + b_4\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^4 + \cdots .</math><br />
<br />
For 0.999… one can apply the [[convergent series|convergence]] theorem concerning [[geometric series]]:<ref>Rudin p.61, Theorem 3.26; J. Stewart p.706</ref><br />
:If <math>|r| < 1 \,\!</math> then <math>ar+ar^2+ar^3+\cdots = \frac{ar}{1-r}.</math><br />
<br />
Since 0.999… is such a sum with a common ratio <math>r=\textstyle\frac{1}{10}</math>, the theorem makes short work of the question:<br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = 9\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right) + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)}{1-{\tfrac{1}{10}}} = 1.\,</math><br />
This proof (actually, that 10 equals 9.999…) appears as early as 1770 in [[Leonhard Euler]]'s ''[[Elements of Algebra]]''.<ref>Euler p.170</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:base4 333.svg|left|thumb|200px|Limits: The unit interval, including the '''base-4''' decimal sequence (.3, .33, .333, …) converging to 1.]]<br />
The sum of a geometric series is itself a result even older than Euler. A typical 18th-century derivation used a term-by-term manipulation similar to the [[#Algebra|algebra proof]] given above, and as late as 1811, Bonnycastle's textbook ''An Introduction to Algebra'' uses such an argument for geometric series to justify the same maneuver on 0.999….<ref>Grattan-Guinness p.69; Bonnycastle p.177</ref> A 19th-century reaction against such liberal summation methods resulted in the definition that still dominates today: the sum of a series is ''defined'' to be the limit of the sequence of its partial sums. A corresponding proof of the theorem explicitly computes that sequence; it can be found in any proof-based introduction to calculus or analysis.<ref>For example, J. Stewart p.706, Rudin p.61, Protter and Morrey p.213, Pugh p.180, J.B. Conway p.31</ref><br />
<br />
A [[sequence]] (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …) has a [[limit of a sequence|limit]] ''x'' if the distance |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>| becomes arbitrarily small as ''n'' increases. The statement that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 can itself be interpreted and proven as a limit:<ref>The limit follows, for example, from Rudin p. 57, Theorem 3.20e. For a more direct approach, see also Finney, Weir, Giordano (2001) ''Thomas' Calculus: Early Transcendentals'' 10ed, Addison-Wesley, New York. Section 8.1, example 2(a), example 6(b).</ref><br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = \lim_{n\to\infty}0.\underbrace{ 99\ldots9 }_{n} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k = 1}^n\frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{10^n}\right) = 1-\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 1.\,</math><br />
<br />
The last step&nbsp;— that <math>\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{10^n} = 0</math>&nbsp;— is often justified by the axiom that the real numbers have the [[Archimedean property]]. This limit-based attitude towards 0.999… is often put in more evocative but less precise terms. For example, the 1846 textbook ''The University Arithmetic'' explains, ".999 +, continued to infinity = 1, because every annexation of a 9 brings the value closer to 1"; the 1895 ''Arithmetic for Schools'' says, "…when a large number of 9s is taken, the difference between 1 and .99999… becomes inconceivably small".<ref>Davies p.175; Smith and Harrington p.115</ref> Such [[heuristic]]s are often interpreted by students as implying that 0.999… itself is less than 1.<br />
<br />
====Nested intervals and least upper bounds====<br />
{{further|[[Nested intervals]]}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:999 Intervals C.svg|right|thumb|250px|Nested intervals: in base 3, 1 = 1.000… = 0.222…]]<br />
The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it.<br />
<br />
If a real number ''x'' is known to lie in the [[closed interval]] [0, 10] (i.e., it is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 10), one can imagine dividing that interval into ten pieces that overlap only at their endpoints: [0, 1], [1, 2], [2, 3], and so on up to [9, 10]. The number ''x'' must belong to one of these; if it belongs to [2, 3] then one records the digit "2" and subdivides that interval into [2, 2.1], [2.1, 2.2], …, [2.8, 2.9], [2.9, 3]. Continuing this process yields an infinite sequence of [[nested intervals]], labeled by an infinite sequence of digits ''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>2</sub>, ''b''<sub>3</sub>, …, and one writes<br />
:''x'' = ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>…<br />
<br />
In this formalism, the identities 1 = 0.999… and 1 = 1.000… reflect, respectively, the fact that 1 lies in both [0, 1] and [1, 2], so one can choose either subinterval when finding its digits. To ensure that this notation does not abuse the "=" sign, one needs a way to reconstruct a unique real number for each decimal. This can be done with limits, but other constructions continue with the ordering theme.<ref>Beals p.22; I. Stewart p.34</ref><br />
<br />
One straightforward choice is the [[nested intervals theorem]], which guarantees that given a sequence of nested, closed intervals whose lengths become arbitrarily small, the intervals contain exactly one real number in their [[intersection (set theory)|intersection]]. So ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is defined to be the unique number contained within all the intervals [''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub> + 1], [''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub> + 0.1], and so on. 0.999… is then the unique real number that lies in all of the intervals [0, 1], [0.9, 1], [0.99, 1], and [0.99…9, 1] for every finite string of 9s. Since 1 is an element of each of these intervals, 0.999… = 1.<ref>Bartle and Sherbert pp.60–62; Pedrick p.29; Sohrab p.46</ref><br />
<br />
The Nested Intervals Theorem is usually founded upon a more fundamental characteristic of the real numbers: the existence of [[least upper bound]]s or ''suprema''. To directly exploit these objects, one may define ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… to be the least upper bound of the set of approximants {''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>, …}.<ref>Apostol pp.9, 11–12; Beals p.22; Rosenlicht p.27</ref> One can then show that this definition (or the nested intervals definition) is consistent with the subdivision procedure, implying 0.999… = 1 again. Tom Apostol concludes,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The fact that a real number might have two different decimal representations is merely a reflection of the fact that two different sets of real numbers can have the same supremum.<ref>Apostol p.12</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
===Based on the construction of the real numbers===<br />
{{further|[[Construction of the real numbers]]}}<br />
<br />
Some approaches explicitly define real numbers to be certain [[construction of the real numbers|structures built upon the rational numbers]], using [[axiomatic set theory]]. The [[natural number]]s&nbsp;— 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on&nbsp;— begin with 0 and continue upwards, so that every number has a successor. One can extend the natural numbers with their negatives to give all the [[integer]]s, and to further extend to ratios, giving the [[rational number]]s. These number systems are accompanied by the arithmetic of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. More subtly, they include [[order theory|ordering]], so that one number can be compared to another and found to be less than, greater than, or equal to another number.<br />
<br />
The step from rationals to reals is a major extension. There are at least two popular ways to achieve this step, both published in 1872: [[Dedekind cut]]s and [[Cauchy sequence]]s. Proofs that 0.999… = 1 which directly use these constructions are not found in textbooks on real analysis, where the modern trend for the last few decades has been to use an axiomatic analysis. Even when a construction is offered, it is usually applied towards proving the axioms of the real numbers, which then support the above proofs. However, several authors express the idea that starting with a construction is more logically appropriate, and the resulting proofs are more self-contained.<ref>The historical synthesis is claimed by Griffiths and Hilton (p.xiv) in 1970 and again by Pugh (p.10) in 2001; both actually prefer Dedekind cuts to axioms. For the use of cuts in textbooks, see Pugh p.17 or Rudin p.17. For viewpoints on logic, Pugh p.10, Rudin p.ix, or Munkres p.30</ref><br />
<br />
====Dedekind cuts====<br />
{{further|[[Dedekind cut]]}}<br />
<br />
In the [[Dedekind cut]] approach, each real number ''x'' is defined as the [[infinite set]] of all rational numbers that are less than ''x''.<ref>Enderton (p.113) qualifies this description: "The idea behind Dedekind cuts is that a real number ''x'' can be named by giving an infinite set of rationals, namely all the rationals less than ''x''. We will in effect define ''x'' to be the set of rationals smaller than ''x''. To avoid circularity in the definition, we must be able to characterize the sets of rationals obtainable in this way…"</ref> In particular, the real number 1 is the set of all rational numbers that are less than 1.<ref>Rudin pp.17–20, Richman p.399, or Enderton p.119. To be precise, Rudin, Richman, and Enderton call this cut 1*, 1<sup>−</sup>, and 1<sub>''R''</sub>, respectively; all three identify it with the traditional real number 1. Note that what Rudin and Enderton call a Dedekind cut, Richman calls a "nonprincipal Dedekind cut".</ref> Every positive decimal expansion easily determines a Dedekind cut: the set of rational numbers which are less than some stage of the expansion. So the real number 0.999… is the set of rational numbers ''r'' such that ''r'' < 0, or ''r'' < 0.9, or ''r'' < 0.99, or ''r'' is less than some other number of the form <math>\begin{align}1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^n\end{align}</math>.<ref>Richman p.399</ref> Every element of 0.999… is less than 1, so it is an element of the real number 1. Conversely, an element of 1 is a rational number<br />
<math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1\end{align}</math>, which implies <math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^b\end{align}</math>. Since 0.999… and 1 contain the same rational numbers, they are the same set: 0.999… = 1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Dedekind cuts was first published by [[Richard Dedekind]] in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2">{{cite web |url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Real_numbers_2.html |title=History topic: The real numbers: Stevin to Hilbert |author=J J O'Connor and E F Robertson |work=MacTutor History of Mathematics |month=October | year=2005 |accessdate=2006-08-30}}</ref><br />
The above approach to assigning a real number to each decimal expansion is due to an expository paper titled "Is 0.999 … = 1?" by Fred Richman in ''[[Mathematics Magazine]]'', which is targeted at teachers of collegiate mathematics, especially at the junior/senior level, and their students.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.maa.org/pubs/mm-guide.html |title=Mathematics Magazine:Guidelines for Authors |publisher=[[Mathematical Association of America]] |accessdate=2006-08-23}}</ref> Richman notes that taking Dedekind cuts in any [[dense subset]] of the rational numbers yields the same results; in particular, he uses [[decimal fraction]]s, for which the proof is more immediate: "So we see that in the traditional definition of the real numbers, the equation 0.9* = 1 is built in at the beginning."<ref>Richman pp.398–399</ref> A further modification of the procedure leads to a different structure that Richman is more interested in describing; see "[[#Alternative number systems|Alternative number systems]]" below.<br />
<br />
====Cauchy sequences====<br />
{{further|[[Cauchy sequence]]}}<br />
<br />
Another approach to constructing the real numbers uses the ordering of rationals less directly. First, the distance between ''x'' and ''y'' is defined as the absolute value |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''|, where the absolute value |''z''| is defined as the maximum of ''z'' and −''z'', thus never negative. Then the reals are defined to be the sequences of rationals that have the [[Cauchy sequence]] property using this distance. That is, in the sequence (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …), a mapping from natural numbers to rationals, for any positive rational δ there is an ''N'' such that |''x''<sub>''m''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>|&nbsp;≤&nbsp;δ for all ''m'', ''n''&nbsp;>&nbsp;''N''. (The distance between terms becomes smaller than any positive rational.)<ref>Griffiths & Hilton §24.2 "Sequences" p.386</ref><br />
<br />
If (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>) and (''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) are two Cauchy sequences, then they are defined to be equal as real numbers if the sequence (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) has the limit 0. Truncations of the decimal number ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… generate a sequence of rationals which is Cauchy; this is taken to define the real value of the number.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.388, 393</ref> Thus in this formalism the task is to show that the sequence of rational numbers<br />
:<math>\left(1 - 0, 1 - {9 \over 10}, 1 - {99 \over 100}, \dots\right)<br />
= \left(1, {1 \over 10}, {1 \over 100}, \dots \right)</math><br />
<br />
has the limit 0. Considering the ''n''th term of the sequence, for ''n''=0,1,2,…, it must therefore be shown that<br />
:<math>\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 0.</math><br />
<br />
This limit is plain;<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.395</ref> one possible proof is that for ε = ''a''/''b'' > 0 one can take ''N''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''b'' in the definition of the [[limit of a sequence]]. So again 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Cauchy sequences was first published separately by [[Eduard Heine]] and [[Georg Cantor]], also in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2" /> The above approach to decimal expansions, including the proof that 0.999… = 1, closely follows Griffiths & Hilton's 1970 work ''A comprehensive textbook of classical mathematics: A contemporary interpretation''. The book is written specifically to offer a second look at familiar concepts in a contemporary light.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.viii, 395</ref><br />
<br />
== Generalizations ==<br />
<br />
The result that 0.999… = 1 generalizes readily in two ways. First, every nonzero number with a finite decimal notation (equivalently, endless trailing 0s) has a counterpart with trailing 9s. For example, 0.24999… equals 0.25, exactly as in the special case considered. These numbers are exactly the decimal fractions, and they are [[Dense set|dense]].<ref>Petkovšek p.408</ref><br />
<br />
Second, a comparable theorem applies in each radix or [[base (mathematics)|base]]. For example, in base 2 (the [[binary numeral system]]) 0.111… equals 1, and in base 3 (the [[ternary numeral system]]) 0.222… equals 1. Textbooks of real analysis are likely to skip the example of 0.999… and present one or both of these generalizations from the start.<ref>Protter and Morrey p.503; Bartle and Sherbert p.61</ref><br />
<br />
Alternative representations of 1 also occur in non-integer bases. For example, in the [[golden ratio base]], the two standard representations are 1.000… and 0.101010…, and there are infinitely many more representations that include adjacent 1s. Generally, for [[almost all]] ''q'' between 1 and 2, there are uncountably many base-''q'' expansions of 1. On the other hand, there are still uncountably many ''q'' (including all natural numbers greater than 1) for which there is only one base-''q'' expansion of 1, other than the trivial 1.000…. This result was first obtained by [[Paul Erdős]], Miklos Horváth, and István Joó around 1990. In 1998 Vilmos Komornik and Paola Loreti determined the smallest such base, the [[Komornik–Loreti constant]] ''q'' = 1.787231650…. In this base, 1 = 0.11010011001011010010110011010011…; the digits are given by the [[Thue–Morse sequence]], which does not repeat.<ref>Komornik and Loreti p.636</ref><br />
<br />
A more far-reaching generalization addresses [[non-standard positional numeral systems|the most general positional numeral systems]]. They too have multiple representations, and in some sense the difficulties are even worse. For example:<ref>Kempner p.611; Petkovšek p.409</ref><br />
*In the [[balanced ternary]] system, <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> = 0.111… = 1.<u>111</u>….<br />
*In the reverse [[factorial number system]] (using bases 2,3,4,... for positions ''after'' the decimal point), 1 = 1.000… = 0.1234….<br />
<br />
=== Impossibility of unique representation ===<br />
<br />
That all these different number systems suffer from multiple representations for some real numbers can be attributed to a fundamental difference between the real numbers as an ordered set and collections of infinite strings of symbols, ordered [[lexicographic ordering|lexicographically]]. Indeed the following two properties account for the difficulty:<br />
<br />
* If an [[interval (mathematics)|interval]] of the [[real number]]s is [[partition of a set|partitioned]] into two non-empty parts ''L'', ''R'', such that every element of ''L'' is (strictly) less than every element of ''R'', then either ''L'' contains a largest element or ''R'' contains a smallest element, but not both.<br />
* The collection of infinite [[string (computer science)|string]]s of symbols taken from any finite "alphabet", lexicographically ordered, can be partitioned into two non-empty parts ''L'', ''R'', such that every element of ''L'' is less than every element of ''R'', while ''L'' contains a largest element ''and'' ''R'' contains a smallest element. Indeed is suffices to take two finite [[prefix (computer science)|prefix]]es (initial substrings) ''p''<sub>1</sub>, ''p''<sub>2</sub> of elements from the collection such that they differ only in their final symbol, for which symbol they have successive values, and take for ''L'' the set of all strings in the collection whose corresponding prefix is at most ''p''<sub>1</sub>, and for ''R'' the remainder, the strings in the collection whose corresponding prefix is at least ''p''<sub>2</sub>. Then ''L'' has a largest element, starting with ''p''<sub>1</sub> and choosing the largest available symbol in all following positions, while ''R'' has a smallest element obtained by following ''p''<sub>2</sub> by smallest symbol in all positions.<br />
<br />
The first point follows from basic properties of the real numbers: ''L'' has a [[supremum]] and ''R'' has an [[infimum]], which are easily seen to be equal; being a real number it either lies in ''R'' or in ''L'', but not both since ''L'' and ''R'' are supposed to be [[disjoint sets|disjoint]]. The second point generalizes the 0.999.../1.000... pair obtained for ''p''<sub>1</sub>&nbsp;=&nbsp;"0", ''p''<sub>2</sub>&nbsp;=&nbsp;"1". In fact one need not use the same alphabet for all positions (so that for instance [[mixed radix]] systems can be included) or consider the full collection of possible strings; the only important points are that at each position a [[finite set]] of symbols (which may even depend on the previous symbols) can be chosen from (this is needed to ensure maximal and minimal choices), and that making a valid choice for any position should result in a valid infinite string (so one should not allow '9' in each position while forbidding an infinite succession of '9's). Under these assumptions, the above argument shows that an [[monotonic|order preserving]] map from the collection of strings to an interval of the real numbers cannot be a [[bijection]]: either some numbers do not correspond to any string, or some of them correspond to more than one string.<br />
<br />
Marko Petkovšek has proved that for any positional system that names all the real numbers, the set of reals with multiple representations is always dense. He calls the proof "an instructive exercise in elementary [[point-set topology]]"; it involves viewing sets of positional values as [[Stone space]]s and noticing that their real representations are given by [[continuous function (topology)|continuous functions]].<ref>Petkovšek pp.410–411</ref><br />
<br />
==Applications==<br />
One application of 0.999… as a representation of 1 occurs in elementary [[number theory]]. In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation on the appearance of 9s in the repeating-decimal representations of fractions whose denominators are certain [[prime number]]s. Examples include:<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>7</sub> = 0.142857142857… and 142 + 857 = 999.<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>73</sub> = 0.0136986301369863… and 0136 + 9863 = 9999.<br />
E. Midy proved a general result about such fractions, now called ''[[Midy's theorem]]'', in 1836. The publication was obscure, and it is unclear if his proof directly involved 0.999…, but at least one modern proof by W. G. Leavitt does. If one can prove that a decimal of the form 0.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is a positive integer, then it must be 0.999…, which is then the source of the 9s in the theorem.<ref>Leavitt 1984 p.301</ref> Investigations in this direction can motivate such concepts as [[greatest common divisor]]s, [[modular arithmetic]], [[Fermat prime]]s, [[order (group theory)|order]] of [[group (mathematics)|group]] elements, and [[quadratic reciprocity]].<ref>Lewittes pp.1–3; Leavitt 1967 pp.669,673; Shrader-Frechette pp.96–98</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:Cantor base 3.svg|right|thumb|Positions of <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>, <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub>, and 1 in the [[Cantor set]]]]<br />
Returning to real analysis, the base-3 analogue 0.222… = 1 plays a key role in a characterization of one of the simplest [[fractal]]s, the middle-thirds [[Cantor set]]:<br />
*A point in the [[unit interval]] lies in the Cantor set if and only if it can be represented in ternary using only the digits 0 and 2.<br />
<br />
The ''n''th digit of the representation reflects the position of the point in the ''n''th stage of the construction. For example, the point ²⁄<sub>3</sub> is given the usual representation of 0.2 or 0.2000…, since it lies to the right of the first deletion and to the left of every deletion thereafter. The point <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> is represented not as 0.1 but as 0.0222…, since it lies to the left of the first deletion and to the right of every deletion thereafter.<ref>Pugh p.97; Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke pp.150–152. Protter and Morrey (p.507) and Pedrick (p.29) assign this description as an exercise.</ref><br />
<br />
Repeating nines also turn up in yet another of Georg Cantor's works. They must be taken into account to construct a valid proof, applying [[Cantor's diagonal argument|his 1891 diagonal argument]] to decimal expansions, of the [[uncountability]] of the unit interval. Such a proof needs to be able to declare certain pairs of real numbers to be different based on their decimal expansions, so one needs to avoid pairs like 0.2 and 0.1999… . A simple method represents all numbers with nonterminating expansions; the opposite method rules out repeating nines.<ref>Maor (p.60) and Mankiewicz (p.151) review the former method; Mankiewicz attributes it to Cantor, but the primary source is unclear. Munkres (p.50) mentions the latter method.</ref> A variant that may be closer to Cantor's original argument actually uses base 2, and by turning base-3 expansions into base-2 expansions, one can prove the uncountability of the Cantor set as well.<ref>Rudin p.50, Pugh p.98</ref><br />
<br />
==Skepticism in education==<br />
Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999… and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the [[Limit of a sequence|limit]] concept and disagreements over the nature of [[infinitesimal]]s. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:<br />
*Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a [[paradox]], which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly well-understood number 1.<ref>Bunch p.119; Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6. The last suggestion is due to Burrell (p.28): "Perhaps the most reassuring of all numbers is 1.…So it is particularly unsettling when someone tries to pass off 0.9~ as 1."</ref><br />
*Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger pp.6–7; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an [[infinitesimal]] but non-zero amount.<br />
*Some students believe that the value of a [[convergent series]] is at best an approximation, that <math>0.\bar{9} \approx 1</math>.<br />
These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive [[counterexample]]s to better understand 0.999….<br />
<br />
Many of these explanations were found by professor [[David O. Tall]], who has studied characteristics of teaching and cognition that lead to some of the misunderstandings he has encountered in his college students. Interviewing his students to determine why the vast majority initially rejected the equality, he found that "students continued to conceive of 0.999… as a sequence of numbers getting closer and closer to 1 and not a fixed value, because 'you haven’t specified how many places there are' or 'it is the nearest possible decimal below 1'".<ref>Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
<br />
Of the elementary proofs, multiplying 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> by 3 is apparently a successful strategy for convincing reluctant students that 0.999… = 1. Still, when confronted with the conflict between their belief of the first equation and their disbelief of the second, some students either begin to disbelieve the first equation or simply become frustrated.<ref>Tall 1976 pp.10–14</ref> Nor are more sophisticated methods foolproof: students who are fully capable of applying rigorous definitions may still fall back on intuitive images when they are surprised by a result in advanced mathematics, including 0.999…. For example, one real analysis student was able to prove that 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> using a [[supremum]] definition, but then insisted that 0.999… < 1 based on her earlier understanding of long division.<ref>Pinto and Tall p.5, Edwards and Ward pp.416–417</ref> Others still are able to prove that <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> = 0.333…, but, upon being confronted by the [[#Fractions|fractional proof]], insist that "logic" supersedes the mathematical calculations.<br />
<br />
[[Joseph Mazur]] tells the tale of an otherwise brilliant calculus student of his who "challenged almost everything I said in class but never questioned his calculator," and who had come to believe that nine digits are all one needs to do mathematics, including calculating the square root of 23. The student remained uncomfortable with a limiting argument that 9.99… = 10, calling it a "wildly imagined infinite growing process."<ref>Mazur pp.137–141</ref><br />
<br />
As part of Ed Dubinsky's "[[APOS theory]]" of mathematical learning, Dubinsky and his collaborators (2005) propose that students who conceive of 0.999… as a finite, indeterminate string with an infinitely small distance from 1 have "not yet constructed a complete process conception of the infinite decimal". Other students who have a complete process conception of 0.999… may not yet be able to "encapsulate" that process into an "object conception", like the object conception they have of 1, and so they view the process 0.999… and the object 1 as incompatible. Dubinsky ''et al.'' also link this mental ability of encapsulation to viewing <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> as a number in its own right and to dealing with the set of natural numbers as a whole.<ref>Dubinsky ''et al.'' 261–262</ref><br />
<br />
==In popular culture==<br />
<br />
With the rise of the [[Internet]], debates about 0.999… have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on [[newsgroup]]s and [[message board]]s, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. In the newsgroup <tt>[news:sci.math sci.math]</tt>, arguing over 0.999… is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its [[FAQ]].<ref>As observed by Richman (p.396). {{cite web |url=http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/specialnumbers/0.999eq1/ |author=Hans de Vreught | year=1994 | title=sci.math FAQ: Why is 0.9999… = 1? |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref> The FAQ briefly covers <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>, multiplication by 10, and limits, and it alludes to Cauchy sequences as well.<br />
<br />
A 2003 edition of the general-interest [[newspaper column]] ''[[The Straight Dope]]'' discusses 0.999… via <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> and limits, saying of misconceptions,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The lower primate in us still resists, saying: .999~ doesn't really represent a ''number'', then, but a ''process''. To find a number we have to halt the process, at which point the .999~ = 1 thing falls apart.<br />
<br />
Nonsense.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030711.html |title=An infinite question: Why doesn't .999~ = 1? |date=2003-07-11 |author=[[Cecil Adams]] |work=[[The Straight Dope]] |publisher=[[Chicago Reader]] |accessdate=2006-09-06}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
''The Straight Dope'' cites a discussion on its own message board that grew out of an unidentified "other message board … mostly about video games". In the same vein, the question of 0.999… proved such a popular topic in the first seven years of [[Blizzard Entertainment]]'s [[Battle.net]] forums that the company issued a "press release" on [[April Fools' Day]] 2004 that it is 1:<br />
<blockquote><br />
We are very excited to close the book on this subject once and for all. We've witnessed the heartache and concern over whether .999~ does or does not equal 1, and we're proud that the following proof finally and conclusively addresses the issue for our customers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?040401 |title=Blizzard Entertainment Announces .999~ (Repeating) = 1 |work=Press Release |publisher=Blizzard Entertainment |date=2004-04-01 |accessdate=2009-11-16}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
Two proofs are then offered, based on limits and multiplication by 10.<br />
<br />
0.999… features also in mathematical folklore, specifically in the following joke:<ref>Renteln and Dundes, p.27</ref> <br />
<blockquote><br />
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
A: 0.999999….<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==0.999... in alternative number systems==<br />
Although the real numbers form an extremely useful [[number system]], the decision to interpret the notation "0.999…" as naming a real number is ultimately a convention, and [[Timothy Gowers]] argues in ''Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction'' that the resulting identity 0.999… = 1 is a convention as well:<br />
<blockquote><br />
However, it is by no means an arbitrary convention, because not adopting it forces one either to invent strange new objects or to abandon some of the familiar rules of arithmetic.<ref>Gowers p.60</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
One can define other number systems using different rules or new objects; in some such number systems, the above proofs would need to be reinterpreted and one might find that, in a given number system, 0.999… and 1 might not be identical. However, many number systems are extensions of&nbsp;— rather than independent alternatives to&nbsp;— the real number system, so 0.999… = 1 continues to hold. Even in such number systems, though, it is worthwhile to examine alternative number systems, not only for how 0.999… behaves (if, indeed, a number expressed as "0.999…" is both meaningful and unambiguous), but also for the behavior of related phenomena. If such phenomena differ from those in the real number system, then at least one of the assumptions built into the system must break down.<br />
<br />
===Infinitesimals===<br />
{{main|Infinitesimal}}<br />
<br />
Some proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the [[Archimedean property]] of the standard real numbers: there are no nonzero [[infinitesimal]]s. There are mathematically coherent ordered [[algebraic structure]]s, including various alternatives to standard reals, which are non-Archimedean. The meaning of 0.999… depends on which structure we use. For example, the [[dual number]]s include a new infinitesimal element ε, analogous to the imaginary unit ''i'' in the [[complex number]]s except that ε²&nbsp;=&nbsp;0. The resulting structure is useful in [[automatic differentiation]]. The dual numbers can be given a [[lexicographic order]], in which case the multiples of ε become non-Archimedean elements.<ref>Berz 439–442</ref> Note, however, that, as an extension of the real numbers, the dual numbers still have 0.999…=1. On a related note, while ε exists in dual numbers, so does ε/2, so ε is not "the smallest positive dual number," and, indeed, as in the reals, no such number exists.<br />
<br />
[[Non-standard analysis]] provides a number system with a full array of infinitesimals (and their inverses).<ref>For a full treatment of non-standard numbers see for example Robinson's ''Non-standard Analysis''.</ref> A.H. Lightstone developed a decimal expansion for the non-standard real numbers in (0, 1)<sup>∗</sup>.<ref>Lightstone pp.245–247</ref> Lightstone shows how to associate to each extended real number a sequence of digits<br />
:0.d<sub>1</sub>d<sub>2</sub>d<sub>3</sub>…;…d<sub>∞−1</sub>d<sub>∞</sub>d<sub>∞+1</sub>…<br />
indexed by the extended natural numbers. While he does not directly discuss 0.999…, he shows the real number 1/3 is represented by 0.333…;…333… which is a consequence of the [[transfer principle]]. Multiplying by 3, one obtains analogous facts for expansions with repeating 9s.<br />
The hyperreal number ''u''<sub>''H''</sub>=0.999…;…999000… with ''H''-infinitely many 9s, for some infinite [[hyperinteger]] ''H'', satisfies a strict inequality ''u''<sub>''H''</sub> < 1.{{Fact|date=January 2009}} Indeed, the sequence u<sub>1</sub>=0.9, u<sub>2</sub>=0.99, u<sub>3</sub>=0.999, etc. satisfies u<sub>n</sub> = 1 - 1/n, hence by the transfer principle u<sub>H</sub> = 1 - 1/H < 1. Lightstone shows that in this system 0.333...;...000... and 0.999...;...000... are not numbers. <br />
<br />
Karin Katz and [[Mikhail Katz]] have developed an alternative to the unital evaluation of the symbol "0.999..." The alternative evaluation is <br />
:<math>.\underset{[\mathbb{N}]}{\underbrace{999\ldots}}\; = 1\;-\;\frac{1}{10^{[\mathbb{N}]}}</math>, <br />
where <math>\langle\mathbb{N}\rangle</math> is the sequence <math>\langle1,2,3,\ldots\rangle</math> listing all the natural numbers in increasing order, while <math>[\mathbb{N}]</math> is the infinite [[hypernatural]] represented by the sequence, in the [[ultrapower]] construction; see Katz & Katz (2010).<br />
<br />
[[Combinatorial game theory]] provides alternative reals as well, with infinite Blue-Red [[Hackenbush]] as one particularly relevant example. In 1974, [[Elwyn Berlekamp]] described a correspondence between [[Hackenbush strings]] and binary expansions of real numbers, motivated by the idea of [[data compression]]. For example, the value of the Hackenbush string LRRLRLRL… is 0.010101<sub>2</sub>…&nbsp;=&nbsp;<sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub>. However, the value of LRLLL… (corresponding to 0.111…<sub>2</sub>) is infinitesimally less than 1. The difference between the two is the [[surreal number]] <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>, where ω is the first [[ordinal number|infinite ordinal]]; the relevant game is LRRRR… or 0.000…<sub>2</sub>.<ref>Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy (pp.79–80, 307–311) discuss 1 and <sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub> and touch on <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>. The game for 0.111…<sub>2</sub> follows directly from Berlekamp's Rule, and it is discussed by {{cite web |url=http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ |title=Hackenstrings and the 0.999… ≟ 1 FAQ |author=A. N. Walker |year=1999 |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
===Breaking subtraction===<br />
Another manner in which the proofs might be undermined is if 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… simply does not exist, because subtraction is not always possible. Mathematical structures with an addition operation but not a subtraction operation include [[commutative]] [[semigroup]]s, [[commutative monoid]]s and [[semiring]]s. Richman considers two such systems, designed so that 0.999… < 1.<br />
<br />
First, Richman defines a nonnegative ''decimal number'' to be a literal decimal expansion. He defines the [[lexicographical order]] and an addition operation, noting that 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 simply because 0&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 in the ones place, but for any nonterminating ''x'', one has 0.999…&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''. So one peculiarity of the decimal numbers is that addition cannot always be cancelled; another is that no decimal number corresponds to <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>. After defining multiplication, the decimal numbers form a positive, totally ordered, commutative semiring.<ref>Richman pp.397–399</ref><br />
<br />
In the process of defining multiplication, Richman also defines another system he calls "cut ''D''", which is the set of Dedekind cuts of decimal fractions. Ordinarily this definition leads to the real numbers, but for a decimal fraction ''d'' he allows both the cut (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;) and the "principal cut" (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;]. The result is that the real numbers are "living uneasily together with" the decimal fractions. Again 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1. There are no positive infinitesimals in cut ''D'', but there is "a sort of negative infinitesimal," 0<sup>−</sup>, which has no decimal expansion. He concludes that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;0<sup>−</sup>, while the equation "0.999… + ''x'' = 1"<br />
has no solution.<ref>Richman pp.398–400. Rudin (p.23) assigns this alternative construction (but over the rationals) as the last exercise of Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
===''p''-adic numbers===<br />
{{main|p-adic number}}<br />
<br />
When asked about 0.999…, novices often believe there should be a "final 9," believing 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… to be a positive number which they write as "0.000…1". Whether or not that makes sense, the intuitive goal is clear: adding a 1 to the last 9 in 0.999… would carry all the 9s into 0s and leave a 1 in the ones place. Among other reasons, this idea fails because there is no "last 9" in 0.999….<ref>Gardiner p.98; Gowers p.60</ref> However, there is a system that contains an infinite string of 9s including a last 9.<br />
<br />
[[Image:4adic 333.svg|right|thumb|200px|The 4-adic integers (black points), including the sequence (3, 33, 333, …) converging to −1. The 10-adic analogue is …999 = −1.]]<br />
<br />
The [[p-adic number|''p''-adic number]]s are an alternative number system of interest in [[number theory]]. Like the real numbers, the ''p''-adic numbers can be built from the rational numbers via [[Cauchy sequence]]s; the construction uses a different metric in which 0 is closer to ''p'', and much closer to ''p<sup>n</sup>'', than it is to 1. The ''p''-adic numbers form a [[field (algebra)|field]] for prime ''p'' and a [[ring (mathematics)|ring]] for other ''p'', including 10. So arithmetic can be performed in the ''p''-adics, and there are no infinitesimals.<br />
<br />
In the 10-adic numbers, the analogues of decimal expansions run to the left. The 10-adic expansion …999 does have a last 9, and it does not have a first 9. One can add 1 to the ones place, and it leaves behind only 0s after carrying through: 1&nbsp;+&nbsp;…999&nbsp;=&nbsp;…000&nbsp;=&nbsp;0, and so …999&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1.<ref name="Fjelstad11">Fjelstad p.11</ref> Another derivation uses a geometric series. The infinite series implied by "…999" does not converge in the real numbers, but it converges in the 10-adics, and so one can re-use the familiar formula:<br />
:<math>\ldots999 = 9 + 9(10) + 9(10)^2 + 9(10)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9}{1-10} = -1.</math><ref>Fjelstad pp.14–15</ref><br />
<br />
(Compare with the series [[#Infinite series and sequences|above]].) A third derivation was invented by a seventh-grader who was doubtful over her teacher's limiting argument that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 but was inspired to take the multiply-by-10 proof [[#Digit manipulation|above]] in the opposite direction: if ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;…999 then 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp; …990, so 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;9, hence ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1 again.<ref name="Fjelstad11" /><br />
<br />
As a final extension, since {{nowrap begin}}0.999… = 1{{nowrap end}} (in the reals) and {{nowrap begin}}…999 = −1{{nowrap end}} (in the 10-adics), then by "blind faith and unabashed juggling of symbols"<ref>DeSua p.901</ref> one may add the two equations and arrive at {{nowrap begin}}…999.999… = 0.{{nowrap end}} This equation does not make sense either as a 10-adic expansion or an ordinary decimal expansion, but it turns out to be meaningful and true if one develops a theory of "double-decimals" with eventually repeating left ends to represent a familiar system: the real numbers.<ref>DeSua pp.902–903</ref><br />
<br />
==Related questions==<br />
<!--[[Intuitionism]] should be worked in somewhere and explained, not necessarily here.--><br />
* [[Zeno's paradoxes]], particularly the paradox of the runner, are reminiscent of the apparent paradox that 0.999… and 1 are equal. The runner paradox can be mathematically modelled and then, like 0.999…, resolved using a geometric series. However, it is not clear if this mathematical treatment addresses the underlying metaphysical issues Zeno was exploring.<ref>Wallace p.51, Maor p.17</ref><br />
* [[Division by zero]] occurs in some popular discussions of 0.999…, and it also stirs up contention. While most authors choose to define 0.999…, almost all modern treatments leave division by zero undefined, as it can be given no meaning in the standard real numbers. However, division by zero is defined in some other systems, such as [[complex analysis]], where the [[extended complex plane]], i.e. the [[Riemann sphere]], has a "[[point at infinity]]". Here, it makes sense to define <sup>1</sup>/<sub>0</sub> to be infinity;<ref>See, for example, J.B. Conway's treatment of Möbius transformations, pp.47–57</ref> and, in fact, the results are profound and applicable to many problems in engineering and physics. Some prominent mathematicians argued for such a definition long before either number system was developed.<ref>Maor p.54</ref><br />
* [[Negative zero]] is another redundant feature of many ways of writing numbers. In number systems, such as the real numbers, where "0" denotes the additive identity and is neither positive nor negative, the usual interpretation of "−0" is that it should denote the additive inverse of 0, which forces −0&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.<ref>Munkres p.34, Exercise 1(c)</ref> Nonetheless, some scientific applications use separate positive and negative zeroes, as do some of the most common computer number systems (for example integers stored in the [[sign and magnitude]] or [[one's complement]] formats, or floating point numbers as specified by the [[IEEE floating-point standard]]).<ref>{{cite book |author=Kroemer, Herbert; Kittel, Charles |title=Thermal Physics |edition=2e |publisher=W. H. Freeman |year=1980 |isbn=0-7167-1088-9 |page=462}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/csspec/html/vclrfcsharpspec_4_1_6.asp |title=Floating point types |work=[[Microsoft Developer Network|MSDN]] C# Language Specification |accessdate=2006-08-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
{{Col-begin}}<br />
{{Col-1-of-3}}<br />
* [[Decimal representation]]<br />
* [[Infinity]]<br />
{{Col-2-of-3}}<br />
* [[Limit (mathematics)]]<br />
* [[Informal mathematics|Naive mathematics]]<br />
* [[Non-standard analysis]]<br />
{{Col-3-of-3}}<br />
* [[Real analysis]]<br />
* [[Series (mathematics)]]<br />
<br />
{{col-end}}<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{refbegin|colwidth=30em}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke |year=1996 |title=Chaos: An introduction to dynamical systems |chapter=4.1 Cantor Sets |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94677-2}}<br />
*:This introductory textbook on dynamical systems is aimed at undergraduate and beginning graduate students. (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Apostol |first=Tom M. |year=1974 |title=Mathematical analysis |edition=2e |publisher=Addison-Wesley |isbn=0-201-00288-4}}<br />
*:A transition from calculus to advanced analysis, ''Mathematical analysis'' is intended to be "honest, rigorous, up to date, and, at the same time, not too pedantic." (pref.) Apostol's development of the real numbers uses the least upper bound axiom and introduces infinite decimals two pages later. (pp.9–11)<br />
*{{cite book |author=Bartle, R.G. and D.R. Sherbert |year=1982 |title=Introduction to real analysis |publisher=Wiley |isbn=0-471-05944-7}}<br />
*:This text aims to be "an accessible, reasonably paced textbook that deals with the fundamental concepts and techniques of real analysis." Its development of the real numbers relies on the supremum axiom. (pp.vii-viii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Beals |first=Richard |title=Analysis |year=2004 |publisher=Cambridge UP |isbn=0-521-60047-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=[[Elwyn Berlekamp|Berlekamp, E.R.]]; [[John Horton Conway|J.H. Conway]]; and [[Richard K. Guy|R.K. Guy]] |year=1982 |title=[[Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays]] |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=0-12-091101-9}}<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Berz |first=Martin |title=Automatic differentiation as nonarchimedean analysis |year=1992 |booktitle=Computer Arithmetic and Enclosure Methods |publisher=Elsevier |pages=439–450 |url=http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/berz92automatic.html}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Bunch |first=Bryan H. |title=Mathematical fallacies and paradoxes |year=1982 |publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold |isbn=0-442-24905-5}}<br />
*:This book presents an analysis of paradoxes and fallacies as a tool for exploring its central topic, "the rather tenuous relationship between mathematical reality and physical reality". It assumes first-year high-school algebra; further mathematics is developed in the book, including geometric series in Chapter 2. Although 0.999… is not one of the paradoxes to be fully treated, it is briefly mentioned during a development of Cantor's diagonal method. (pp.ix-xi, 119)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Burrell |first=Brian |title=Merriam-Webster's Guide to Everyday Math: A Home and Business Reference |year=1998 |publisher=Merriam-Webster |isbn=0-87779-621-1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Conway |first=John B. |authorlink=John B. Conway |title=Functions of one complex variable I |edition=2e |publisher=Springer-Verlag |origyear=1973 |year=1978 |isbn=0-387-90328-3}}<br />
*:This text assumes "a stiff course in basic calculus" as a prerequisite; its stated principles are to present complex analysis as "An Introduction to Mathematics" and to state the material clearly and precisely. (p.vii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Davies |first=Charles |year=1846 |title=The University Arithmetic: Embracing the Science of Numbers, and Their Numerous Applications |publisher=A.S. Barnes |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02026287&pg=PA175}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=DeSua |first=Frank C. |title=A system isomorphic to the reals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=67 |number=9 |month=November |year=1960 |pages=900–903 |doi=10.2307/2309468 |issue=9}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Dubinsky, Ed, Kirk Weller, Michael McDonald, and Anne Brown |title=Some historical issues and paradoxes regarding the concept of infinity: an APOS analysis: part 2 |journal=Educational Studies in Mathematics |year=2005 |volume=60 |pages=253–266 |doi=10.1007/s10649-005-0473-0}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Edwards, Barbara and Michael Ward |year=2004 |month=May |title=Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=111 |number=5 |pages=411–425 |url=http://www.wou.edu/~wardm/FromMonthlyMay2004.pdf |doi=10.2307/4145268|format=PDF |issue=5}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Enderton |first=Herbert B. |year=1977 |title=Elements of set theory |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=0-12-238440-7}}<br />
*:An introductory undergraduate textbook in set theory that "presupposes no specific background". It is written to accommodate a course focusing on axiomatic set theory or on the construction of number systems; the axiomatic material is marked such that it may be de-emphasized. (pp.xi-xii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Euler |first=Leonhard |authorlink=Leonhard Euler |origyear=1770 |year=1822 |edition=3rd English |title=Elements of Algebra |editor=John Hewlett and Francis Horner, English translators. |publisher=Orme Longman |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=X8yv0sj4_1YC&pg=PA170 |isbn=0387960147}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Fjelstad |first=Paul |title=The repeating integer paradox |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=26 |number=1 |month=January |year=1995 |pages=11–15 |doi=10.2307/2687285 |issue=1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gardiner |first=Anthony |title=Understanding Infinity: The Mathematics of Infinite Processes |origyear=1982 |year=2003 |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-42538-X}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gowers |first=Timothy|authorlink= William Timothy Gowers|title=Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction |year=2002 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-285361-9}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Grattan-Guinness |first=Ivor |year=1970 |title=The development of the foundations of mathematical analysis from Euler to Riemann |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=0-262-07034-0}}<br />
*{{cite book | last=Griffiths | first=H.B. | coauthors=P.J. Hilton | title=A Comprehensive Textbook of Classical Mathematics: A Contemporary Interpretation | year=1970 | publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold | location=London | isbn=0-442-02863-6. {{LCC|QA37.2|G75}}}}<br />
*:This book grew out of a course for [[Birmingham]]-area [[grammar school]] mathematics teachers. The course was intended to convey a university-level perspective on [[mathematics education|school mathematics]], and the book is aimed at students "who have reached roughly the level of completing one year of specialist mathematical study at a university". The real numbers are constructed in Chapter 24, "perhaps the most difficult chapter in the entire book", although the authors ascribe much of the difficulty to their use of [[ideal theory]], which is not reproduced here. (pp.vii, xiv)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Kempner |first=A.J. |title=Anormal Systems of Numeration |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=43 |number=10 |month=December |year=1936 |pages=610–617 |doi=10.2307/2300532 |issue=10 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Komornik, Vilmos; and Paola Loreti |title=Unique Developments in Non-Integer Bases |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=105 |number=7 |year=1998 |pages=636–639 |doi=10.2307/2589246 |issue=7 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=A Theorem on Repeating Decimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=74 |number=6 |year=1967 |pages=669–673 |doi=10.2307/2314251 |issue=6 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=Repeating Decimals |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=15 |number=4 |month=September |year=1984 |pages=299–308 |doi=10.2307/2686394 |issue=4 }}<br />
*{{cite web | url=http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0605182 |title=Midy's Theorem for Periodic Decimals |last=Lewittes |first=Joseph |work=New York Number Theory Workshop on Combinatorial and Additive Number Theory |year=2006 |publisher=[[arXiv]]}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Lightstone |first=A.H. |title=Infinitesimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |year=1972 |volume=79 |number=3 |month=March |pages=242–251 |doi=10.2307/2316619 |issue=3 }}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mankiewicz |first=Richard |year=2000 |title=The story of mathematics|publisher=Cassell |isbn=0-304-35473-2}}<br />
*:Mankiewicz seeks to represent "the history of mathematics in an accessible style" by combining visual and qualitative aspects of mathematics, mathematicians' writings, and historical sketches. (p.8)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Maor |first=Eli |title=To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite |year=1987 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=3-7643-3325-1}}<br />
*:A topical rather than chronological review of infinity, this book is "intended for the general reader" but "told from the point of view of a mathematician". On the dilemma of rigor versus readable language, Maor comments, "I hope I have succeeded in properly addressing this problem." (pp.x-xiii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mazur |first=Joseph |title=Euclid in the Rainforest: Discovering Universal Truths in Logic and Math |year=2005 |publisher=Pearson: Pi Press |isbn=0-13-147994-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Munkres |first=James R. |title=Topology |year=2000 |origyear=1975 |edition=2e |publisher=Prentice-Hall |isbn=0-13-181629-2}}<br />
*:Intended as an introduction "at the senior or first-year graduate level" with no formal prerequisites: "I do not even assume the reader knows much set theory." (p.xi) Munkres' treatment of the reals is axiomatic; he claims of bare-hands constructions, "This way of approaching the subject takes a good deal of time and effort and is of greater logical than mathematical interest." (p.30)<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Núñez |first=Rafael |title=Do Real Numbers Really Move? Language, Thought, and Gesture: The Embodied Cognitive Foundations of Mathematics |year=2006 |booktitle=18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics |publisher=Springer |pages=160–181 |url=http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/publications.html | id=ISBN 978-0-387-25717-4}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pedrick |first=George |title=A First Course in Analysis |year=1994 |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94108-8}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Petkovšek |first=Marko |title=Ambiguous Numbers are Dense |journal=[[American Mathematical Monthly]] |volume=97 |number=5 |month=May |year=1990 |pages=408–411 |doi=10.2307/2324393 |issue=5 }}<br />
*{{cite conference |author=Pinto, Márcia and David Tall |title=Following students' development in a traditional university analysis course |booktitle=PME25 |pages=v4: 57–64 |year=2001 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001j-pme25-pinto-tall.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Protter, M.H. and [[Charles B. Morrey, Jr.|C.B. Morrey]] |year=1991 |edition=2e |title=A first course in real analysis |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-97437-7}}<br />
*:This book aims to "present a theoretical foundation of analysis that is suitable for students who have completed a standard course in calculus." (p.vii) At the end of Chapter 2, the authors assume as an axiom for the real numbers that bounded, nodecreasing sequences converge, later proving the nested intervals theorem and the least upper bound property. (pp.56–64) Decimal expansions appear in Appendix 3, "Expansions of real numbers in any base". (pp.503–507)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pugh |first=Charles Chapman |title=Real mathematical analysis |year=2001 |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=0-387-95297-7}}<br />
*:While assuming familiarity with the rational numbers, Pugh introduces [[Dedekind cut]]s as soon as possible, saying of the axiomatic treatment, "This is something of a fraud, considering that the entire structure of analysis is built on the real number system." (p.10) After proving the least upper bound property and some allied facts, cuts are not used in the rest of the book.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Renteln, Paul and Allan Dundes |year=2005 |month=January |title=Foolproof: A Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humor |journal=[[Notices of the AMS]] |volume=52 |number=1 |pages=24–34 |url=http://www.ams.org/notices/200501/fea-dundes.pdf|doi=|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |first=Fred |last=Richman |year=1999 |month=December |title=Is 0.999… = 1? |journal=[[Mathematics Magazine]] |volume=72 |issue=5 |pages=396–400 }} Free HTML preprint: {{cite web |url=http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm |first=Fred|last=Richman|title=Is 0.999… = 1? |date=1999-06-08 |accessdate=2006-08-23}} Note: the journal article contains material and wording not found in the preprint.<br />
*{{cite book |last=Robinson |first=Abraham |authorlink=Abraham Robinson |title=Non-standard analysis |year=1996 |edition=Revised |publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=0-691-04490-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rosenlicht |first=Maxwell |year=1985 |title=Introduction to Analysis |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-65038-3}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rudin |first=Walter |authorlink=Walter Rudin |title=Principles of mathematical analysis |edition=3e |year=1976 |origyear=1953 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=0-07-054235-X}}<br />
*:A textbook for an advanced undergraduate course. "Experience has convinced me that it is pedagogically unsound (though logically correct) to start off with the construction of the real numbers from the rational ones. At the beginning, most students simply fail to appreciate the need for doing this. Accordingly, the real number system is introduced as an ordered field with the least-upper-bound property, and a few interesting applications of this property are quickly made. However, Dedekind's construction is not omitted. It is now in an Appendix to Chapter 1, where it may be studied and enjoyed whenever the time is ripe." (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Shrader-Frechette |first=Maurice |title=Complementary Rational Numbers |journal=Mathematics Magazine |volume=51 |number=2 |month=March |year=1978 |pages=90–98 }}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Smith, Charles and Charles Harrington |year=1895 |title=Arithmetic for Schools |publisher=Macmillan |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02029670&pg=PA115}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Sohrab |first=Houshang |title=Basic Real Analysis |year=2003 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=0-8176-4211-0}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=Ian |title=The Foundations of Mathematics |year=1977 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-853165-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=James |title=Calculus: Early transcendentals |edition=4e |year=1999 |publisher=Brooks/Cole |isbn=0-534-36298-2}}<br />
*:This book aims to "assist students in discovering calculus" and "to foster conceptual understanding". (p.v) It omits proofs of the foundations of calculus.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=D.O. Tall and R.L.E. Schwarzenberger |title=Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits |journal=Mathematics Teaching |year=1978 |volume=82 |pages=44–49 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1978c-with-rolph.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |authorlink=David O. Tall |title=Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics |journal=Mathematical Education for Teaching |year=1976/7 |volume=2 |number=4 |pages=2–18 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1976a-confl-catastrophy.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |title=Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology |journal=Mathematics Education Research Journal |year=2000 |volume=12 |number=3 |pages=210–230 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001b-merj-amt.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book|last=von Mangoldt|first=Dr. Hans|authorlink =Hans Carl Friedrich von Mangoldt| title=Einführung in die höhere Mathematik|edition=1st|year=1911|publisher=Verlag von S. Hirzel| location=Leipzig|language=German|chapter=Reihenzahlen}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Wallace |first=David Foster|authorlink =David Foster Wallace |title=Everything and more: a compact history of infinity |year=2003 |publisher=Norton |isbn=0-393-00338-8}}<br />
{{refend}}<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
{{Spoken Wikipedia|0.999....ogg|2006-10-19}}<br />
{{commons|0.999...}}<br />
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/999999.shtml .999999… = 1?] from [[cut-the-knot]]<br />
* [http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html Why does 0.9999… = 1 ?]<br />
* [http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99167.htm Ask A Scientist: Repeating Decimals]<br />
* [http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.00/joan2.html Proof of the equality based on arithmetic]<br />
* [http://descmath.com/diag/nines.html Repeating Nines]<br />
* [http://qntm.org/pointnine Point nine recurring equals one]<br />
* [http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/themes/limits-infinity.html David Tall's research on mathematics cognition]<br />
* [http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html What is so wrong with thinking of real numbers as infinite decimals?]<br />
* [http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/0.999....html Theorem 0.999...] on [[Metamath]]<br />
* [http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ Hackenstrings, and the 0.999... ?= 1 FAQ]<br />
* [http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-friendly-chat-about-whether-0-999-1/ A Friendly Chat About Whether 0.999… = 1]<br />
*Katz, K.; [[Mikhail Katz|Katz, M.]] (2010) When is .999... less than 1? [[The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast]], Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3--30. http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/vol7no1/<br />
<br />
{{featured article}}<br />
<br />
<!-- [[en:0.999...]] --><br />
<br />
[[Category:One]]<br />
[[Category:Mathematics paradoxes]]<br />
[[Category:Real analysis]]<br />
[[Category:Real numbers]]<br />
[[Category:Numeration]]<br />
[[Category:Articles containing proofs]]<br />
<br />
{{Link FA|hu}}<br />
{{Link FA|ja}}<br />
{{Link FA|zh}}<br />
<br />
[[ar:0.999...]]<br />
[[be:0,(9)]]<br />
[[be-x-old:0,(9)]]<br />
[[bg:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ca:0,999...]]<br />
[[da:0,999...]]<br />
[[de:Eins#Periodischer Dezimalbruch]]<br />
[[el:0,999...]]<br />
[[es:0,9 periódico]]<br />
[[eo:0,999...]]<br />
[[fa:۰٫۹۹۹…]]<br />
[[fr:Développement décimal de l'unité]]<br />
[[ko:0.999…]]<br />
[[id:0,999...]]<br />
[[it:0,999...]]<br />
[[he:0.999...]]<br />
[[ka:0.999...]]<br />
[[lv:0,999...]]<br />
[[hu:0,999…]]<br />
[[ml:0.999...]]<br />
[[ms:0.999...]]<br />
[[nl:Repeterende breuk#Repeterende negens]]<br />
[[ja:0.999...]]<br />
[[no:0,999...]]<br />
[[nov:0.999...]]<br />
[[uz:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pl:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pt:0,999...]]<br />
[[ro:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ru:0,(9)]]<br />
[[sl:0,999...]]<br />
[[fi:0,999...]]<br />
[[sv:0,999...]]<br />
[[ta:0.999...]]<br />
[[th:0.999...]]<br />
[[tr:0,999...]]<br />
[[vi:0,999...]]<br />
[[yo:0.999...]]<br />
[[zh:0.999…]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=0,999%E2%80%A6&diff=1274355120,999…2010-02-13T16:42:42Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Generalizations */ added an explanation</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- NOTE: The content of this article is well-established. If you have an argument against one or more of the proofs listed here, please read the FAQ on [[Talk:0.999...]], or discuss it on [[Talk:0.999.../Arguments]]. However, please understand that the earlier, more naive proofs are not as rigorous as the later ones as they intend to appeal to intuition, and as such may require further justification to be complete. Thank you. --><br />
[[Image:999 Perspective.png|300px|right]]<br />
<br />
In [[mathematics]], the [[repeating decimal]] '''0.999…''' which may also be written as <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em"> 0.\bar{9}</math>, <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em">0.\dot{9}</math> or <math style="position:relative;top:-.2em"> 0.(9)\,\!</math>, denotes a [[real number]] equal to [[1 (number)|the number '''one''']]. In other words, the notations ''0.999…'' and ''1'' represent the same number within the real number system. [[mathematical proof|Proofs]] of this [[equality (mathematics)|equality]] have been formulated with varying degrees of [[mathematical rigour]], taking into account preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience.<br />
<br />
That certain real numbers can be represented by more than one digit string is not limited to the decimal system. The same phenomenon occurs in all [[integer]] [[radix|base]]s, and mathematicians have also quantified the ways of writing 1 in [[Non-integer representation|non-integer bases]]. Nor is this phenomenon unique to 1: every non-zero, terminating decimal has a twin with trailing 9s, such as 28.3287 and 28.3286999…. For simplicity, the terminating decimal is almost always the preferred representation, contributing to a misconception that it is the ''only'' representation. Even more generally, any [[positional numeral system]] contains infinitely many numbers with multiple representations. These various identities have been applied to better understand patterns in the decimal expansions of [[fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s and the structure of a simple [[fractal]], the [[Cantor set]]. They also occur in a classic investigation of the infinitude of the entire set of real numbers.<br />
<br />
The ''0.999...=1'' [[Equality (mathematics)|equality]] has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. In the last few decades, researchers of [[mathematics education]] have studied the reception of this equality among students, many of whom initially question or reject this equality. Many are persuaded by an [[Argument_from_authority|appeal to authority]] from textbooks and teachers, or by arithmetic reasoning as below to accept that the two are equal. However, some are often uneasy enough that they seek further justification. The students' reasoning for denying or affirming the equality is typically based on one of a few common errors triggered by [[counterintuitive]] behavior of the real numbers; for example that each real number has a unique [[decimal expansion]], that nonzero [[infinitesimal]] real numbers should exist, or that the expansion of 0.999… eventually terminates. <br />
<br />
Number systems can be constructed bearing out some of these intuitions, and in some of which the equality is false. Though these number systems are different to the standard [[real number]] system used in elementary, and most higher, mathematics. Indeed, some settings contain numbers that are "just shy" of 1; these are generally unrelated to 0.999…, but they are of considerable interest in [[mathematical analysis]].<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
0.999… is a number written in the [[decimal]] [[numeral system]], and some of the simplest proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the convenient [[arithmetic]] properties of this system. Most of decimal arithmetic—[[addition]], [[subtraction]], [[multiplication]], [[division (mathematics)|division]], and [[inequality|comparison]]—uses manipulations at the digit level that are much the same as those for [[integer]]s. As with integers, any two ''finite'' decimals with different digits mean different numbers (ignoring trailing zeros). In particular, any number of the form 0.99…9, where the 9s eventually stop, is strictly less than 1.<br />
<br />
Misinterpreting the meaning of the use of the "…" ([[ellipsis]]) in 0.999… accounts for some of the misunderstanding about its equality to 1. The use here is different from the usage in language or in 0.99…9, in which the ellipsis specifies that some ''finite'' portion is left unstated or otherwise omitted. When used to specify a [[recurring decimal]], "…" means that some ''infinite'' portion is left unstated, which can only be interpreted as a number by using the mathematical concept of [[limit of a sequence|limits]]. As a result, in conventional mathematical usage, the value assigned to the notation "0.999…" is defined to be the [[real number]] which is the [[limit of a sequence|limit]] of the [[convergent sequence]] (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, …).<br />
<br />
Unlike the case with integers and finite decimals, other notations can also express a single number in multiple ways. For example, using [[Fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s, {{frac|1|3}} = {{frac|2|6}}. Infinite decimals, however, can express the same number in at most two different ways. If there are two ways, then one of them must end with an infinite series of nines, and the other must terminate (that is, consist of a recurring series of zeros from a certain point on).<br />
<br />
There are many proofs that 0.999… = 1, of varying degrees of mathematical rigour. A short sketch of one rigorous proof can be simply stated as follows. Consider that two [[real number]]s are identical [[if and only if]] their difference is equal to zero. Most people would agree that the difference between 0.999… and 1, if it exists at all, must be very small. By considering the convergence of the sequence above, we can show that the magnitude of this difference must be smaller than any positive quantity, and it can be shown (see [[Archimedean property]] for details) that the only real number with this property is 0. Since the difference is 0 it follows that the numbers 1 and 0.999… are identical. The same argument also explains why 0.333… = {{frac|1|3}}, 0.111… = {{frac|1|9}}, etc.<br />
<br />
==Proofs==<br />
===Algebraic===<br />
====Fractions and long division====<br />
<br />
One reason that infinite decimals are a necessary extension of finite decimals is to represent fractions. Using [[long division]], a simple division of integers like {{frac|1|3}} becomes a recurring decimal, 0.333…, in which the digits repeat without end. This decimal yields a quick proof for 0.999… = 1. Multiplication of 3 times 3 produces 9 in each digit, so 3 × 0.333… equals 0.999…. And 3 × {{frac|1|3}} equals 1, so 0.999… = 1.<ref name="CME">cf. with the binary version of the same argument in [[Silvanus P. Thompson]], ''Calculus made easy'', St. Martin's Press, New York, 1998. ISBN 0-312-18548-0.</ref><br />
<br />
Another form of this proof multiplies {{frac|1|9}} = 0.111… by 9.<br />
<br />
:{| style="wikitable"<br />
|<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.333\dots &{} = \frac{1}{3} \\<br />
3 \times 0.333\dots &{} = 3 \times \frac{1}{3} = \frac{3 \times 1}{3} \\<br />
0.999\dots &{} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
|width="25px"|<br />
|width="25px" style="border-left:1px solid silver;"|<br />
|<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.111\dots & {} = \frac{1}{9} \\<br />
9 \times 0.111\dots & {} = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} = \frac{9 \times 1}{9} \\<br />
0.999\dots & {} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
|}<br />
<br />
A more compact version of the same proof is given by the following equations:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
1 = \frac{9}{9} = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} = 9 \times 0.111\dots = 0.999\dots<br />
</math><br />
<br />
Since both equations are valid, 0.999… must equal 1 (by the [[transitive property]]). Similarly, {{frac|3|3}} = 1, and {{frac|3|3}} = 0.999…. So, 0.999… must equal 1.<br />
<br />
====Digit manipulation====<br />
<br />
Another kind of proof more easily adapts to other repeating decimals. When a number in decimal notation is multiplied by 10, the digits do not change but the decimal separator moves one place to the right. Thus 10 × 0.999… equals 9.999…, which is 9 greater than the original number.<br />
<br />
To see this, consider that subtracting 0.999… from 9.999… can proceed digit by digit; in each of the digits after the decimal separator the result is 9 − 9, which is 0. But trailing zeros do not change a number, so the difference is exactly 9. The final step uses algebra:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
x &= 0.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x &= 9.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x - x &= 9.999\ldots - 0.999\ldots \\<br />
9 x &= 9 \\<br />
x &= 1 \\<br />
0.999\ldots &= 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The validity of the digit manipulations in the above two proofs does not have to be taken on faith or as an axiom; it follows from the fundamental relationship between decimals and the numbers they represent. This relationship, which can be developed in several equivalent manners, already establishes that the decimals 0.999… and 1.000… both represent the same number.<br />
<br />
===Analytic===<br />
Since the question of 0.999… does not affect the formal development of mathematics, it can be postponed until one proves the standard theorems of [[real analysis]]. One requirement is to characterize real numbers that can be written in decimal notation, consisting of an optional sign, a finite sequence of any number of digits forming an integer part, a decimal separator, and a sequence of digits forming a fractional part. For the purpose of discussing 0.999…, the integer part can be summarized as ''b''<sub>0</sub> and one can neglect negatives, so a decimal expansion has the form<br />
:<math>b_0.b_1b_2b_3b_4b_5\dots</math><br />
<br />
It is vital that the fraction part, unlike the integer part, is not limited to a finite number of digits. This is a [[positional notation]], so for example the 5 in 500 contributes ten times as much as the 5 in 50, and the 5 in 0.05 contributes one tenth as much as the 5 in 0.5.<br />
<br />
====Infinite series and sequences====<br />
{{further|[[Decimal representation]]}}<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most common development of decimal expansions is to define them as sums of [[infinite series]]. In general:<br />
:<math>b_0 . b_1 b_2 b_3 b_4 \ldots = b_0 + b_1\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right) + b_2\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + b_3\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + b_4\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^4 + \cdots .</math><br />
<br />
For 0.999… one can apply the [[convergent series|convergence]] theorem concerning [[geometric series]]:<ref>Rudin p.61, Theorem 3.26; J. Stewart p.706</ref><br />
:If <math>|r| < 1 \,\!</math> then <math>ar+ar^2+ar^3+\cdots = \frac{ar}{1-r}.</math><br />
<br />
Since 0.999… is such a sum with a common ratio <math>r=\textstyle\frac{1}{10}</math>, the theorem makes short work of the question:<br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = 9\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right) + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)}{1-{\tfrac{1}{10}}} = 1.\,</math><br />
This proof (actually, that 10 equals 9.999…) appears as early as 1770 in [[Leonhard Euler]]'s ''[[Elements of Algebra]]''.<ref>Euler p.170</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:base4 333.svg|left|thumb|200px|Limits: The unit interval, including the '''base-4''' decimal sequence (.3, .33, .333, …) converging to 1.]]<br />
The sum of a geometric series is itself a result even older than Euler. A typical 18th-century derivation used a term-by-term manipulation similar to the [[#Algebra|algebra proof]] given above, and as late as 1811, Bonnycastle's textbook ''An Introduction to Algebra'' uses such an argument for geometric series to justify the same maneuver on 0.999….<ref>Grattan-Guinness p.69; Bonnycastle p.177</ref> A 19th-century reaction against such liberal summation methods resulted in the definition that still dominates today: the sum of a series is ''defined'' to be the limit of the sequence of its partial sums. A corresponding proof of the theorem explicitly computes that sequence; it can be found in any proof-based introduction to calculus or analysis.<ref>For example, J. Stewart p.706, Rudin p.61, Protter and Morrey p.213, Pugh p.180, J.B. Conway p.31</ref><br />
<br />
A [[sequence]] (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …) has a [[limit of a sequence|limit]] ''x'' if the distance |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>| becomes arbitrarily small as ''n'' increases. The statement that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 can itself be interpreted and proven as a limit:<ref>The limit follows, for example, from Rudin p. 57, Theorem 3.20e. For a more direct approach, see also Finney, Weir, Giordano (2001) ''Thomas' Calculus: Early Transcendentals'' 10ed, Addison-Wesley, New York. Section 8.1, example 2(a), example 6(b).</ref><br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = \lim_{n\to\infty}0.\underbrace{ 99\ldots9 }_{n} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k = 1}^n\frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{10^n}\right) = 1-\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 1.\,</math><br />
<br />
The last step&nbsp;— that <math>\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{10^n} = 0</math>&nbsp;— is often justified by the axiom that the real numbers have the [[Archimedean property]]. This limit-based attitude towards 0.999… is often put in more evocative but less precise terms. For example, the 1846 textbook ''The University Arithmetic'' explains, ".999 +, continued to infinity = 1, because every annexation of a 9 brings the value closer to 1"; the 1895 ''Arithmetic for Schools'' says, "…when a large number of 9s is taken, the difference between 1 and .99999… becomes inconceivably small".<ref>Davies p.175; Smith and Harrington p.115</ref> Such [[heuristic]]s are often interpreted by students as implying that 0.999… itself is less than 1.<br />
<br />
====Nested intervals and least upper bounds====<br />
{{further|[[Nested intervals]]}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:999 Intervals C.svg|right|thumb|250px|Nested intervals: in base 3, 1 = 1.000… = 0.222…]]<br />
The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it.<br />
<br />
If a real number ''x'' is known to lie in the [[closed interval]] [0, 10] (i.e., it is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 10), one can imagine dividing that interval into ten pieces that overlap only at their endpoints: [0, 1], [1, 2], [2, 3], and so on up to [9, 10]. The number ''x'' must belong to one of these; if it belongs to [2, 3] then one records the digit "2" and subdivides that interval into [2, 2.1], [2.1, 2.2], …, [2.8, 2.9], [2.9, 3]. Continuing this process yields an infinite sequence of [[nested intervals]], labeled by an infinite sequence of digits ''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>2</sub>, ''b''<sub>3</sub>, …, and one writes<br />
:''x'' = ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>…<br />
<br />
In this formalism, the identities 1 = 0.999… and 1 = 1.000… reflect, respectively, the fact that 1 lies in both [0, 1] and [1, 2], so one can choose either subinterval when finding its digits. To ensure that this notation does not abuse the "=" sign, one needs a way to reconstruct a unique real number for each decimal. This can be done with limits, but other constructions continue with the ordering theme.<ref>Beals p.22; I. Stewart p.34</ref><br />
<br />
One straightforward choice is the [[nested intervals theorem]], which guarantees that given a sequence of nested, closed intervals whose lengths become arbitrarily small, the intervals contain exactly one real number in their [[intersection (set theory)|intersection]]. So ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is defined to be the unique number contained within all the intervals [''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub> + 1], [''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub> + 0.1], and so on. 0.999… is then the unique real number that lies in all of the intervals [0, 1], [0.9, 1], [0.99, 1], and [0.99…9, 1] for every finite string of 9s. Since 1 is an element of each of these intervals, 0.999… = 1.<ref>Bartle and Sherbert pp.60–62; Pedrick p.29; Sohrab p.46</ref><br />
<br />
The Nested Intervals Theorem is usually founded upon a more fundamental characteristic of the real numbers: the existence of [[least upper bound]]s or ''suprema''. To directly exploit these objects, one may define ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… to be the least upper bound of the set of approximants {''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>, …}.<ref>Apostol pp.9, 11–12; Beals p.22; Rosenlicht p.27</ref> One can then show that this definition (or the nested intervals definition) is consistent with the subdivision procedure, implying 0.999… = 1 again. Tom Apostol concludes,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The fact that a real number might have two different decimal representations is merely a reflection of the fact that two different sets of real numbers can have the same supremum.<ref>Apostol p.12</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
===Based on the construction of the real numbers===<br />
{{further|[[Construction of the real numbers]]}}<br />
<br />
Some approaches explicitly define real numbers to be certain [[construction of the real numbers|structures built upon the rational numbers]], using [[axiomatic set theory]]. The [[natural number]]s&nbsp;— 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on&nbsp;— begin with 0 and continue upwards, so that every number has a successor. One can extend the natural numbers with their negatives to give all the [[integer]]s, and to further extend to ratios, giving the [[rational number]]s. These number systems are accompanied by the arithmetic of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. More subtly, they include [[order theory|ordering]], so that one number can be compared to another and found to be less than, greater than, or equal to another number.<br />
<br />
The step from rationals to reals is a major extension. There are at least two popular ways to achieve this step, both published in 1872: [[Dedekind cut]]s and [[Cauchy sequence]]s. Proofs that 0.999… = 1 which directly use these constructions are not found in textbooks on real analysis, where the modern trend for the last few decades has been to use an axiomatic analysis. Even when a construction is offered, it is usually applied towards proving the axioms of the real numbers, which then support the above proofs. However, several authors express the idea that starting with a construction is more logically appropriate, and the resulting proofs are more self-contained.<ref>The historical synthesis is claimed by Griffiths and Hilton (p.xiv) in 1970 and again by Pugh (p.10) in 2001; both actually prefer Dedekind cuts to axioms. For the use of cuts in textbooks, see Pugh p.17 or Rudin p.17. For viewpoints on logic, Pugh p.10, Rudin p.ix, or Munkres p.30</ref><br />
<br />
====Dedekind cuts====<br />
{{further|[[Dedekind cut]]}}<br />
<br />
In the [[Dedekind cut]] approach, each real number ''x'' is defined as the [[infinite set]] of all rational numbers that are less than ''x''.<ref>Enderton (p.113) qualifies this description: "The idea behind Dedekind cuts is that a real number ''x'' can be named by giving an infinite set of rationals, namely all the rationals less than ''x''. We will in effect define ''x'' to be the set of rationals smaller than ''x''. To avoid circularity in the definition, we must be able to characterize the sets of rationals obtainable in this way…"</ref> In particular, the real number 1 is the set of all rational numbers that are less than 1.<ref>Rudin pp.17–20, Richman p.399, or Enderton p.119. To be precise, Rudin, Richman, and Enderton call this cut 1*, 1<sup>−</sup>, and 1<sub>''R''</sub>, respectively; all three identify it with the traditional real number 1. Note that what Rudin and Enderton call a Dedekind cut, Richman calls a "nonprincipal Dedekind cut".</ref> Every positive decimal expansion easily determines a Dedekind cut: the set of rational numbers which are less than some stage of the expansion. So the real number 0.999… is the set of rational numbers ''r'' such that ''r'' < 0, or ''r'' < 0.9, or ''r'' < 0.99, or ''r'' is less than some other number of the form <math>\begin{align}1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^n\end{align}</math>.<ref>Richman p.399</ref> Every element of 0.999… is less than 1, so it is an element of the real number 1. Conversely, an element of 1 is a rational number<br />
<math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1\end{align}</math>, which implies <math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^b\end{align}</math>. Since 0.999… and 1 contain the same rational numbers, they are the same set: 0.999… = 1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Dedekind cuts was first published by [[Richard Dedekind]] in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2">{{cite web |url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Real_numbers_2.html |title=History topic: The real numbers: Stevin to Hilbert |author=J J O'Connor and E F Robertson |work=MacTutor History of Mathematics |month=October | year=2005 |accessdate=2006-08-30}}</ref><br />
The above approach to assigning a real number to each decimal expansion is due to an expository paper titled "Is 0.999 … = 1?" by Fred Richman in ''[[Mathematics Magazine]]'', which is targeted at teachers of collegiate mathematics, especially at the junior/senior level, and their students.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.maa.org/pubs/mm-guide.html |title=Mathematics Magazine:Guidelines for Authors |publisher=[[Mathematical Association of America]] |accessdate=2006-08-23}}</ref> Richman notes that taking Dedekind cuts in any [[dense subset]] of the rational numbers yields the same results; in particular, he uses [[decimal fraction]]s, for which the proof is more immediate: "So we see that in the traditional definition of the real numbers, the equation 0.9* = 1 is built in at the beginning."<ref>Richman pp.398–399</ref> A further modification of the procedure leads to a different structure that Richman is more interested in describing; see "[[#Alternative number systems|Alternative number systems]]" below.<br />
<br />
====Cauchy sequences====<br />
{{further|[[Cauchy sequence]]}}<br />
<br />
Another approach to constructing the real numbers uses the ordering of rationals less directly. First, the distance between ''x'' and ''y'' is defined as the absolute value |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''|, where the absolute value |''z''| is defined as the maximum of ''z'' and −''z'', thus never negative. Then the reals are defined to be the sequences of rationals that have the [[Cauchy sequence]] property using this distance. That is, in the sequence (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …), a mapping from natural numbers to rationals, for any positive rational δ there is an ''N'' such that |''x''<sub>''m''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>|&nbsp;≤&nbsp;δ for all ''m'', ''n''&nbsp;>&nbsp;''N''. (The distance between terms becomes smaller than any positive rational.)<ref>Griffiths & Hilton §24.2 "Sequences" p.386</ref><br />
<br />
If (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>) and (''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) are two Cauchy sequences, then they are defined to be equal as real numbers if the sequence (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) has the limit 0. Truncations of the decimal number ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… generate a sequence of rationals which is Cauchy; this is taken to define the real value of the number.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.388, 393</ref> Thus in this formalism the task is to show that the sequence of rational numbers<br />
:<math>\left(1 - 0, 1 - {9 \over 10}, 1 - {99 \over 100}, \dots\right)<br />
= \left(1, {1 \over 10}, {1 \over 100}, \dots \right)</math><br />
<br />
has the limit 0. Considering the ''n''th term of the sequence, for ''n''=0,1,2,…, it must therefore be shown that<br />
:<math>\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 0.</math><br />
<br />
This limit is plain;<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.395</ref> one possible proof is that for ε = ''a''/''b'' > 0 one can take ''N''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''b'' in the definition of the [[limit of a sequence]]. So again 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Cauchy sequences was first published separately by [[Eduard Heine]] and [[Georg Cantor]], also in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2" /> The above approach to decimal expansions, including the proof that 0.999… = 1, closely follows Griffiths & Hilton's 1970 work ''A comprehensive textbook of classical mathematics: A contemporary interpretation''. The book is written specifically to offer a second look at familiar concepts in a contemporary light.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.viii, 395</ref><br />
<br />
== Generalizations ==<br />
<br />
The result that 0.999… = 1 generalizes readily in two ways. First, every nonzero number with a finite decimal notation (equivalently, endless trailing 0s) has a counterpart with trailing 9s. For example, 0.24999… equals 0.25, exactly as in the special case considered. These numbers are exactly the decimal fractions, and they are [[Dense set|dense]].<ref>Petkovšek p.408</ref><br />
<br />
Second, a comparable theorem applies in each radix or [[base (mathematics)|base]]. For example, in base 2 (the [[binary numeral system]]) 0.111… equals 1, and in base 3 (the [[ternary numeral system]]) 0.222… equals 1. Textbooks of real analysis are likely to skip the example of 0.999… and present one or both of these generalizations from the start.<ref>Protter and Morrey p.503; Bartle and Sherbert p.61</ref><br />
<br />
Alternative representations of 1 also occur in non-integer bases. For example, in the [[golden ratio base]], the two standard representations are 1.000… and 0.101010…, and there are infinitely many more representations that include adjacent 1s. Generally, for [[almost all]] ''q'' between 1 and 2, there are uncountably many base-''q'' expansions of 1. On the other hand, there are still uncountably many ''q'' (including all natural numbers greater than 1) for which there is only one base-''q'' expansion of 1, other than the trivial 1.000…. This result was first obtained by [[Paul Erdős]], Miklos Horváth, and István Joó around 1990. In 1998 Vilmos Komornik and Paola Loreti determined the smallest such base, the [[Komornik–Loreti constant]] ''q'' = 1.787231650…. In this base, 1 = 0.11010011001011010010110011010011…; the digits are given by the [[Thue–Morse sequence]], which does not repeat.<ref>Komornik and Loreti p.636</ref><br />
<br />
A more far-reaching generalization addresses [[non-standard positional numeral systems|the most general positional numeral systems]]. They too have multiple representations, and in some sense the difficulties are even worse. For example:<ref>Kempner p.611; Petkovšek p.409</ref><br />
*In the [[balanced ternary]] system, <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> = 0.111… = 1.<u>111</u>….<br />
*In the reverse [[factorial number system]] (using bases 2,3,4,... for positions ''after'' the decimal point), 1 = 1.000… = 0.1234….<br />
<br />
=== Impossibility of unique representation ===<br />
<br />
That all these different number systems suffer from multiple representations for some real numbers can be attributed to a fundamental difference between the real numbers as an ordered set and collections of infinite strings of symbols, ordered [[lexicographic ordering|lexicographically]]. Indeed the following two properties account for the difficulty:<br />
<br />
* If the [[real number]]s are [[partition of a set|partitioned]] into two non-empty parts ''L'', ''R'', such that every element of ''L'' is (strictly) less than every element of ''R'', then either ''L'' contains a largest element or ''R'' contains a smallest element, but not both.<br />
* The collection of infinite [[string (computer science)|string]]s of symbols taken from any finite "alphabet", lexicographically ordered, can be partitioned into two non-empty parts ''L'', ''R'', such that every element of ''L'' is less than every element of ''R'', while ''L'' contains a largest element ''and'' ''R'' contains a smallest element. Indeed is suffices to take two finite [[prefix (computer science)|prefix]]es (initial substrings) ''p''<sub>1</sub>, ''p''<sub>2</sub> of elements from the collection such that they differ only in their final symbol, for which symbol they have successive values, and take for ''L'' the set of all strings in the collection whose corresponding prefix is at most ''p''<sub>1</sub>, and for ''R'' the remainder, the strings in the collection whose corresponding prefix is at least ''p''<sub>2</sub>. Then ''L'' has a largest element, starting with ''p''<sub>1</sub> and choosing the largest available symbol in all following positions, while ''R'' has a smallest element obtained by following ''p''<sub>2</sub> by smallest symbol in all positions.<br />
<br />
The first point follows from basic properties of the real numbers: ''L'' has a [[supremum]] and ''R'' has an [[infimum]], which are easily seen to be equal; being a real number it either lies in ''R'' or in ''L'', but not both since ''L'' and ''R'' are supposed to be [[disjoint sets|disjoint]]. The second point generalizes the 0.999.../1.000... pair obtained for ''p''<sub>1</sub>&nbsp;=&nbsp;"0", ''p''<sub>2</sub>&nbsp;=&nbsp;"1". In fact one need not use the same alphabet for all positions (so that for instance [[mixed radix]] systems can be included) or consider the full collection of possible strings; the only important points are that at each position a [[finite set]] of symbols (which may even depend on the previous symbols) can be chosen from (this is needed to ensure maximal and minimal choices), and that making a valid choice for any position should result in a valid infinite string (so one should not allow '9' in each position while forbidding an infinite succession of '9's). Under these assumptions, the above argument shows that an [[monotonic|order preserving]] map from the collection of strings to the real numbers cannot be a [[bijection]]: either some numbers do not correspond to any string, or some of them correspond to more than one string.<br />
<br />
Marko Petkovšek has proved that for any positional system that names all the real numbers, the set of reals with multiple representations is always dense. He calls the proof "an instructive exercise in elementary [[point-set topology]]"; it involves viewing sets of positional values as [[Stone space]]s and noticing that their real representations are given by [[continuous function (topology)|continuous functions]].<ref>Petkovšek pp.410–411</ref><br />
<br />
==Applications==<br />
One application of 0.999… as a representation of 1 occurs in elementary [[number theory]]. In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation on the appearance of 9s in the repeating-decimal representations of fractions whose denominators are certain [[prime number]]s. Examples include:<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>7</sub> = 0.142857142857… and 142 + 857 = 999.<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>73</sub> = 0.0136986301369863… and 0136 + 9863 = 9999.<br />
E. Midy proved a general result about such fractions, now called ''[[Midy's theorem]]'', in 1836. The publication was obscure, and it is unclear if his proof directly involved 0.999…, but at least one modern proof by W. G. Leavitt does. If one can prove that a decimal of the form 0.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is a positive integer, then it must be 0.999…, which is then the source of the 9s in the theorem.<ref>Leavitt 1984 p.301</ref> Investigations in this direction can motivate such concepts as [[greatest common divisor]]s, [[modular arithmetic]], [[Fermat prime]]s, [[order (group theory)|order]] of [[group (mathematics)|group]] elements, and [[quadratic reciprocity]].<ref>Lewittes pp.1–3; Leavitt 1967 pp.669,673; Shrader-Frechette pp.96–98</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:Cantor base 3.svg|right|thumb|Positions of <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>, <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub>, and 1 in the [[Cantor set]]]]<br />
Returning to real analysis, the base-3 analogue 0.222… = 1 plays a key role in a characterization of one of the simplest [[fractal]]s, the middle-thirds [[Cantor set]]:<br />
*A point in the [[unit interval]] lies in the Cantor set if and only if it can be represented in ternary using only the digits 0 and 2.<br />
<br />
The ''n''th digit of the representation reflects the position of the point in the ''n''th stage of the construction. For example, the point ²⁄<sub>3</sub> is given the usual representation of 0.2 or 0.2000…, since it lies to the right of the first deletion and to the left of every deletion thereafter. The point <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> is represented not as 0.1 but as 0.0222…, since it lies to the left of the first deletion and to the right of every deletion thereafter.<ref>Pugh p.97; Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke pp.150–152. Protter and Morrey (p.507) and Pedrick (p.29) assign this description as an exercise.</ref><br />
<br />
Repeating nines also turn up in yet another of Georg Cantor's works. They must be taken into account to construct a valid proof, applying [[Cantor's diagonal argument|his 1891 diagonal argument]] to decimal expansions, of the [[uncountability]] of the unit interval. Such a proof needs to be able to declare certain pairs of real numbers to be different based on their decimal expansions, so one needs to avoid pairs like 0.2 and 0.1999… . A simple method represents all numbers with nonterminating expansions; the opposite method rules out repeating nines.<ref>Maor (p.60) and Mankiewicz (p.151) review the former method; Mankiewicz attributes it to Cantor, but the primary source is unclear. Munkres (p.50) mentions the latter method.</ref> A variant that may be closer to Cantor's original argument actually uses base 2, and by turning base-3 expansions into base-2 expansions, one can prove the uncountability of the Cantor set as well.<ref>Rudin p.50, Pugh p.98</ref><br />
<br />
==Skepticism in education==<br />
Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999… and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the [[Limit of a sequence|limit]] concept and disagreements over the nature of [[infinitesimal]]s. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:<br />
*Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a [[paradox]], which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly well-understood number 1.<ref>Bunch p.119; Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6. The last suggestion is due to Burrell (p.28): "Perhaps the most reassuring of all numbers is 1.…So it is particularly unsettling when someone tries to pass off 0.9~ as 1."</ref><br />
*Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger pp.6–7; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an [[infinitesimal]] but non-zero amount.<br />
*Some students believe that the value of a [[convergent series]] is at best an approximation, that <math>0.\bar{9} \approx 1</math>.<br />
These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive [[counterexample]]s to better understand 0.999….<br />
<br />
Many of these explanations were found by professor [[David O. Tall]], who has studied characteristics of teaching and cognition that lead to some of the misunderstandings he has encountered in his college students. Interviewing his students to determine why the vast majority initially rejected the equality, he found that "students continued to conceive of 0.999… as a sequence of numbers getting closer and closer to 1 and not a fixed value, because 'you haven’t specified how many places there are' or 'it is the nearest possible decimal below 1'".<ref>Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
<br />
Of the elementary proofs, multiplying 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> by 3 is apparently a successful strategy for convincing reluctant students that 0.999… = 1. Still, when confronted with the conflict between their belief of the first equation and their disbelief of the second, some students either begin to disbelieve the first equation or simply become frustrated.<ref>Tall 1976 pp.10–14</ref> Nor are more sophisticated methods foolproof: students who are fully capable of applying rigorous definitions may still fall back on intuitive images when they are surprised by a result in advanced mathematics, including 0.999…. For example, one real analysis student was able to prove that 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> using a [[supremum]] definition, but then insisted that 0.999… < 1 based on her earlier understanding of long division.<ref>Pinto and Tall p.5, Edwards and Ward pp.416–417</ref> Others still are able to prove that <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> = 0.333…, but, upon being confronted by the [[#Fractions|fractional proof]], insist that "logic" supersedes the mathematical calculations.<br />
<br />
[[Joseph Mazur]] tells the tale of an otherwise brilliant calculus student of his who "challenged almost everything I said in class but never questioned his calculator," and who had come to believe that nine digits are all one needs to do mathematics, including calculating the square root of 23. The student remained uncomfortable with a limiting argument that 9.99… = 10, calling it a "wildly imagined infinite growing process."<ref>Mazur pp.137–141</ref><br />
<br />
As part of Ed Dubinsky's "[[APOS theory]]" of mathematical learning, Dubinsky and his collaborators (2005) propose that students who conceive of 0.999… as a finite, indeterminate string with an infinitely small distance from 1 have "not yet constructed a complete process conception of the infinite decimal". Other students who have a complete process conception of 0.999… may not yet be able to "encapsulate" that process into an "object conception", like the object conception they have of 1, and so they view the process 0.999… and the object 1 as incompatible. Dubinsky ''et al.'' also link this mental ability of encapsulation to viewing <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> as a number in its own right and to dealing with the set of natural numbers as a whole.<ref>Dubinsky ''et al.'' 261–262</ref><br />
<br />
==In popular culture==<br />
<br />
With the rise of the [[Internet]], debates about 0.999… have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on [[newsgroup]]s and [[message board]]s, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. In the newsgroup <tt>[news:sci.math sci.math]</tt>, arguing over 0.999… is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its [[FAQ]].<ref>As observed by Richman (p.396). {{cite web |url=http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/specialnumbers/0.999eq1/ |author=Hans de Vreught | year=1994 | title=sci.math FAQ: Why is 0.9999… = 1? |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref> The FAQ briefly covers <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>, multiplication by 10, and limits, and it alludes to Cauchy sequences as well.<br />
<br />
A 2003 edition of the general-interest [[newspaper column]] ''[[The Straight Dope]]'' discusses 0.999… via <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> and limits, saying of misconceptions,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The lower primate in us still resists, saying: .999~ doesn't really represent a ''number'', then, but a ''process''. To find a number we have to halt the process, at which point the .999~ = 1 thing falls apart.<br />
<br />
Nonsense.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030711.html |title=An infinite question: Why doesn't .999~ = 1? |date=2003-07-11 |author=[[Cecil Adams]] |work=[[The Straight Dope]] |publisher=[[Chicago Reader]] |accessdate=2006-09-06}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
''The Straight Dope'' cites a discussion on its own message board that grew out of an unidentified "other message board … mostly about video games". In the same vein, the question of 0.999… proved such a popular topic in the first seven years of [[Blizzard Entertainment]]'s [[Battle.net]] forums that the company issued a "press release" on [[April Fools' Day]] 2004 that it is 1:<br />
<blockquote><br />
We are very excited to close the book on this subject once and for all. We've witnessed the heartache and concern over whether .999~ does or does not equal 1, and we're proud that the following proof finally and conclusively addresses the issue for our customers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?040401 |title=Blizzard Entertainment Announces .999~ (Repeating) = 1 |work=Press Release |publisher=Blizzard Entertainment |date=2004-04-01 |accessdate=2009-11-16}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
Two proofs are then offered, based on limits and multiplication by 10.<br />
<br />
0.999… features also in mathematical folklore, specifically in the following joke:<ref>Renteln and Dundes, p.27</ref> <br />
<blockquote><br />
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
A: 0.999999….<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==0.999... in alternative number systems==<br />
Although the real numbers form an extremely useful [[number system]], the decision to interpret the notation "0.999…" as naming a real number is ultimately a convention, and [[Timothy Gowers]] argues in ''Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction'' that the resulting identity 0.999… = 1 is a convention as well:<br />
<blockquote><br />
However, it is by no means an arbitrary convention, because not adopting it forces one either to invent strange new objects or to abandon some of the familiar rules of arithmetic.<ref>Gowers p.60</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
One can define other number systems using different rules or new objects; in some such number systems, the above proofs would need to be reinterpreted and one might find that, in a given number system, 0.999… and 1 might not be identical. However, many number systems are extensions of&nbsp;— rather than independent alternatives to&nbsp;— the real number system, so 0.999… = 1 continues to hold. Even in such number systems, though, it is worthwhile to examine alternative number systems, not only for how 0.999… behaves (if, indeed, a number expressed as "0.999…" is both meaningful and unambiguous), but also for the behavior of related phenomena. If such phenomena differ from those in the real number system, then at least one of the assumptions built into the system must break down.<br />
<br />
===Infinitesimals===<br />
{{main|Infinitesimal}}<br />
<br />
Some proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the [[Archimedean property]] of the standard real numbers: there are no nonzero [[infinitesimal]]s. There are mathematically coherent ordered [[algebraic structure]]s, including various alternatives to standard reals, which are non-Archimedean. The meaning of 0.999… depends on which structure we use. For example, the [[dual number]]s include a new infinitesimal element ε, analogous to the imaginary unit ''i'' in the [[complex number]]s except that ε²&nbsp;=&nbsp;0. The resulting structure is useful in [[automatic differentiation]]. The dual numbers can be given a [[lexicographic order]], in which case the multiples of ε become non-Archimedean elements.<ref>Berz 439–442</ref> Note, however, that, as an extension of the real numbers, the dual numbers still have 0.999…=1. On a related note, while ε exists in dual numbers, so does ε/2, so ε is not "the smallest positive dual number," and, indeed, as in the reals, no such number exists.<br />
<br />
[[Non-standard analysis]] provides a number system with a full array of infinitesimals (and their inverses).<ref>For a full treatment of non-standard numbers see for example Robinson's ''Non-standard Analysis''.</ref> A.H. Lightstone developed a decimal expansion for the non-standard real numbers in (0, 1)<sup>∗</sup>.<ref>Lightstone pp.245–247</ref> Lightstone shows how to associate to each extended real number a sequence of digits<br />
:0.d<sub>1</sub>d<sub>2</sub>d<sub>3</sub>…;…d<sub>∞−1</sub>d<sub>∞</sub>d<sub>∞+1</sub>…<br />
indexed by the extended natural numbers. While he does not directly discuss 0.999…, he shows the real number 1/3 is represented by 0.333…;…333… which is a consequence of the [[transfer principle]]. Multiplying by 3, one obtains analogous facts for expansions with repeating 9s.<br />
The hyperreal number ''u''<sub>''H''</sub>=0.999…;…999000… with ''H''-infinitely many 9s, for some infinite [[hyperinteger]] ''H'', satisfies a strict inequality ''u''<sub>''H''</sub> < 1.{{Fact|date=January 2009}} Indeed, the sequence u<sub>1</sub>=0.9, u<sub>2</sub>=0.99, u<sub>3</sub>=0.999, etc. satisfies u<sub>n</sub> = 1 - 1/n, hence by the transfer principle u<sub>H</sub> = 1 - 1/H < 1. Lightstone shows that in this system 0.333...;...000... and 0.999...;...000... are not numbers. <br />
<br />
Karin Katz and [[Mikhail Katz]] have developed an alternative to the unital evaluation of the symbol "0.999..." The alternative evaluation is <br />
:<math>.\underset{[\mathbb{N}]}{\underbrace{999\ldots}}\; = 1\;-\;\frac{1}{10^{[\mathbb{N}]}}</math>, <br />
where <math>\langle\mathbb{N}\rangle</math> is the sequence <math>\langle1,2,3,\ldots\rangle</math> listing all the natural numbers in increasing order, while <math>[\mathbb{N}]</math> is the infinite [[hypernatural]] represented by the sequence, in the [[ultrapower]] construction; see Katz & Katz (2010).<br />
<br />
[[Combinatorial game theory]] provides alternative reals as well, with infinite Blue-Red [[Hackenbush]] as one particularly relevant example. In 1974, [[Elwyn Berlekamp]] described a correspondence between [[Hackenbush strings]] and binary expansions of real numbers, motivated by the idea of [[data compression]]. For example, the value of the Hackenbush string LRRLRLRL… is 0.010101<sub>2</sub>…&nbsp;=&nbsp;<sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub>. However, the value of LRLLL… (corresponding to 0.111…<sub>2</sub>) is infinitesimally less than 1. The difference between the two is the [[surreal number]] <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>, where ω is the first [[ordinal number|infinite ordinal]]; the relevant game is LRRRR… or 0.000…<sub>2</sub>.<ref>Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy (pp.79–80, 307–311) discuss 1 and <sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub> and touch on <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>. The game for 0.111…<sub>2</sub> follows directly from Berlekamp's Rule, and it is discussed by {{cite web |url=http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ |title=Hackenstrings and the 0.999… ≟ 1 FAQ |author=A. N. Walker |year=1999 |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
===Breaking subtraction===<br />
Another manner in which the proofs might be undermined is if 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… simply does not exist, because subtraction is not always possible. Mathematical structures with an addition operation but not a subtraction operation include [[commutative]] [[semigroup]]s, [[commutative monoid]]s and [[semiring]]s. Richman considers two such systems, designed so that 0.999… < 1.<br />
<br />
First, Richman defines a nonnegative ''decimal number'' to be a literal decimal expansion. He defines the [[lexicographical order]] and an addition operation, noting that 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 simply because 0&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 in the ones place, but for any nonterminating ''x'', one has 0.999…&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''. So one peculiarity of the decimal numbers is that addition cannot always be cancelled; another is that no decimal number corresponds to <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>. After defining multiplication, the decimal numbers form a positive, totally ordered, commutative semiring.<ref>Richman pp.397–399</ref><br />
<br />
In the process of defining multiplication, Richman also defines another system he calls "cut ''D''", which is the set of Dedekind cuts of decimal fractions. Ordinarily this definition leads to the real numbers, but for a decimal fraction ''d'' he allows both the cut (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;) and the "principal cut" (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;]. The result is that the real numbers are "living uneasily together with" the decimal fractions. Again 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1. There are no positive infinitesimals in cut ''D'', but there is "a sort of negative infinitesimal," 0<sup>−</sup>, which has no decimal expansion. He concludes that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;0<sup>−</sup>, while the equation "0.999… + ''x'' = 1"<br />
has no solution.<ref>Richman pp.398–400. Rudin (p.23) assigns this alternative construction (but over the rationals) as the last exercise of Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
===''p''-adic numbers===<br />
{{main|p-adic number}}<br />
<br />
When asked about 0.999…, novices often believe there should be a "final 9," believing 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… to be a positive number which they write as "0.000…1". Whether or not that makes sense, the intuitive goal is clear: adding a 1 to the last 9 in 0.999… would carry all the 9s into 0s and leave a 1 in the ones place. Among other reasons, this idea fails because there is no "last 9" in 0.999….<ref>Gardiner p.98; Gowers p.60</ref> However, there is a system that contains an infinite string of 9s including a last 9.<br />
<br />
[[Image:4adic 333.svg|right|thumb|200px|The 4-adic integers (black points), including the sequence (3, 33, 333, …) converging to −1. The 10-adic analogue is …999 = −1.]]<br />
<br />
The [[p-adic number|''p''-adic number]]s are an alternative number system of interest in [[number theory]]. Like the real numbers, the ''p''-adic numbers can be built from the rational numbers via [[Cauchy sequence]]s; the construction uses a different metric in which 0 is closer to ''p'', and much closer to ''p<sup>n</sup>'', than it is to 1. The ''p''-adic numbers form a [[field (algebra)|field]] for prime ''p'' and a [[ring (mathematics)|ring]] for other ''p'', including 10. So arithmetic can be performed in the ''p''-adics, and there are no infinitesimals.<br />
<br />
In the 10-adic numbers, the analogues of decimal expansions run to the left. The 10-adic expansion …999 does have a last 9, and it does not have a first 9. One can add 1 to the ones place, and it leaves behind only 0s after carrying through: 1&nbsp;+&nbsp;…999&nbsp;=&nbsp;…000&nbsp;=&nbsp;0, and so …999&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1.<ref name="Fjelstad11">Fjelstad p.11</ref> Another derivation uses a geometric series. The infinite series implied by "…999" does not converge in the real numbers, but it converges in the 10-adics, and so one can re-use the familiar formula:<br />
:<math>\ldots999 = 9 + 9(10) + 9(10)^2 + 9(10)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9}{1-10} = -1.</math><ref>Fjelstad pp.14–15</ref><br />
<br />
(Compare with the series [[#Infinite series and sequences|above]].) A third derivation was invented by a seventh-grader who was doubtful over her teacher's limiting argument that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 but was inspired to take the multiply-by-10 proof [[#Digit manipulation|above]] in the opposite direction: if ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;…999 then 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp; …990, so 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;9, hence ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1 again.<ref name="Fjelstad11" /><br />
<br />
As a final extension, since {{nowrap begin}}0.999… = 1{{nowrap end}} (in the reals) and {{nowrap begin}}…999 = −1{{nowrap end}} (in the 10-adics), then by "blind faith and unabashed juggling of symbols"<ref>DeSua p.901</ref> one may add the two equations and arrive at {{nowrap begin}}…999.999… = 0.{{nowrap end}} This equation does not make sense either as a 10-adic expansion or an ordinary decimal expansion, but it turns out to be meaningful and true if one develops a theory of "double-decimals" with eventually repeating left ends to represent a familiar system: the real numbers.<ref>DeSua pp.902–903</ref><br />
<br />
==Related questions==<br />
<!--[[Intuitionism]] should be worked in somewhere and explained, not necessarily here.--><br />
* [[Zeno's paradoxes]], particularly the paradox of the runner, are reminiscent of the apparent paradox that 0.999… and 1 are equal. The runner paradox can be mathematically modelled and then, like 0.999…, resolved using a geometric series. However, it is not clear if this mathematical treatment addresses the underlying metaphysical issues Zeno was exploring.<ref>Wallace p.51, Maor p.17</ref><br />
* [[Division by zero]] occurs in some popular discussions of 0.999…, and it also stirs up contention. While most authors choose to define 0.999…, almost all modern treatments leave division by zero undefined, as it can be given no meaning in the standard real numbers. However, division by zero is defined in some other systems, such as [[complex analysis]], where the [[extended complex plane]], i.e. the [[Riemann sphere]], has a "[[point at infinity]]". Here, it makes sense to define <sup>1</sup>/<sub>0</sub> to be infinity;<ref>See, for example, J.B. Conway's treatment of Möbius transformations, pp.47–57</ref> and, in fact, the results are profound and applicable to many problems in engineering and physics. Some prominent mathematicians argued for such a definition long before either number system was developed.<ref>Maor p.54</ref><br />
* [[Negative zero]] is another redundant feature of many ways of writing numbers. In number systems, such as the real numbers, where "0" denotes the additive identity and is neither positive nor negative, the usual interpretation of "−0" is that it should denote the additive inverse of 0, which forces −0&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.<ref>Munkres p.34, Exercise 1(c)</ref> Nonetheless, some scientific applications use separate positive and negative zeroes, as do some of the most common computer number systems (for example integers stored in the [[sign and magnitude]] or [[one's complement]] formats, or floating point numbers as specified by the [[IEEE floating-point standard]]).<ref>{{cite book |author=Kroemer, Herbert; Kittel, Charles |title=Thermal Physics |edition=2e |publisher=W. H. Freeman |year=1980 |isbn=0-7167-1088-9 |page=462}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/csspec/html/vclrfcsharpspec_4_1_6.asp |title=Floating point types |work=[[Microsoft Developer Network|MSDN]] C# Language Specification |accessdate=2006-08-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
{{Col-begin}}<br />
{{Col-1-of-3}}<br />
* [[Decimal representation]]<br />
* [[Infinity]]<br />
{{Col-2-of-3}}<br />
* [[Limit (mathematics)]]<br />
* [[Informal mathematics|Naive mathematics]]<br />
* [[Non-standard analysis]]<br />
{{Col-3-of-3}}<br />
* [[Real analysis]]<br />
* [[Series (mathematics)]]<br />
<br />
{{col-end}}<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{refbegin|colwidth=30em}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke |year=1996 |title=Chaos: An introduction to dynamical systems |chapter=4.1 Cantor Sets |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94677-2}}<br />
*:This introductory textbook on dynamical systems is aimed at undergraduate and beginning graduate students. (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Apostol |first=Tom M. |year=1974 |title=Mathematical analysis |edition=2e |publisher=Addison-Wesley |isbn=0-201-00288-4}}<br />
*:A transition from calculus to advanced analysis, ''Mathematical analysis'' is intended to be "honest, rigorous, up to date, and, at the same time, not too pedantic." (pref.) Apostol's development of the real numbers uses the least upper bound axiom and introduces infinite decimals two pages later. (pp.9–11)<br />
*{{cite book |author=Bartle, R.G. and D.R. Sherbert |year=1982 |title=Introduction to real analysis |publisher=Wiley |isbn=0-471-05944-7}}<br />
*:This text aims to be "an accessible, reasonably paced textbook that deals with the fundamental concepts and techniques of real analysis." Its development of the real numbers relies on the supremum axiom. (pp.vii-viii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Beals |first=Richard |title=Analysis |year=2004 |publisher=Cambridge UP |isbn=0-521-60047-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=[[Elwyn Berlekamp|Berlekamp, E.R.]]; [[John Horton Conway|J.H. Conway]]; and [[Richard K. Guy|R.K. Guy]] |year=1982 |title=[[Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays]] |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=0-12-091101-9}}<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Berz |first=Martin |title=Automatic differentiation as nonarchimedean analysis |year=1992 |booktitle=Computer Arithmetic and Enclosure Methods |publisher=Elsevier |pages=439–450 |url=http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/berz92automatic.html}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Bunch |first=Bryan H. |title=Mathematical fallacies and paradoxes |year=1982 |publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold |isbn=0-442-24905-5}}<br />
*:This book presents an analysis of paradoxes and fallacies as a tool for exploring its central topic, "the rather tenuous relationship between mathematical reality and physical reality". It assumes first-year high-school algebra; further mathematics is developed in the book, including geometric series in Chapter 2. Although 0.999… is not one of the paradoxes to be fully treated, it is briefly mentioned during a development of Cantor's diagonal method. (pp.ix-xi, 119)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Burrell |first=Brian |title=Merriam-Webster's Guide to Everyday Math: A Home and Business Reference |year=1998 |publisher=Merriam-Webster |isbn=0-87779-621-1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Conway |first=John B. |authorlink=John B. Conway |title=Functions of one complex variable I |edition=2e |publisher=Springer-Verlag |origyear=1973 |year=1978 |isbn=0-387-90328-3}}<br />
*:This text assumes "a stiff course in basic calculus" as a prerequisite; its stated principles are to present complex analysis as "An Introduction to Mathematics" and to state the material clearly and precisely. (p.vii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Davies |first=Charles |year=1846 |title=The University Arithmetic: Embracing the Science of Numbers, and Their Numerous Applications |publisher=A.S. Barnes |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02026287&pg=PA175}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=DeSua |first=Frank C. |title=A system isomorphic to the reals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=67 |number=9 |month=November |year=1960 |pages=900–903 |doi=10.2307/2309468 |issue=9}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Dubinsky, Ed, Kirk Weller, Michael McDonald, and Anne Brown |title=Some historical issues and paradoxes regarding the concept of infinity: an APOS analysis: part 2 |journal=Educational Studies in Mathematics |year=2005 |volume=60 |pages=253–266 |doi=10.1007/s10649-005-0473-0}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Edwards, Barbara and Michael Ward |year=2004 |month=May |title=Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=111 |number=5 |pages=411–425 |url=http://www.wou.edu/~wardm/FromMonthlyMay2004.pdf |doi=10.2307/4145268|format=PDF |issue=5}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Enderton |first=Herbert B. |year=1977 |title=Elements of set theory |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=0-12-238440-7}}<br />
*:An introductory undergraduate textbook in set theory that "presupposes no specific background". It is written to accommodate a course focusing on axiomatic set theory or on the construction of number systems; the axiomatic material is marked such that it may be de-emphasized. (pp.xi-xii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Euler |first=Leonhard |authorlink=Leonhard Euler |origyear=1770 |year=1822 |edition=3rd English |title=Elements of Algebra |editor=John Hewlett and Francis Horner, English translators. |publisher=Orme Longman |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=X8yv0sj4_1YC&pg=PA170 |isbn=0387960147}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Fjelstad |first=Paul |title=The repeating integer paradox |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=26 |number=1 |month=January |year=1995 |pages=11–15 |doi=10.2307/2687285 |issue=1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gardiner |first=Anthony |title=Understanding Infinity: The Mathematics of Infinite Processes |origyear=1982 |year=2003 |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-42538-X}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gowers |first=Timothy|authorlink= William Timothy Gowers|title=Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction |year=2002 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-285361-9}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Grattan-Guinness |first=Ivor |year=1970 |title=The development of the foundations of mathematical analysis from Euler to Riemann |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=0-262-07034-0}}<br />
*{{cite book | last=Griffiths | first=H.B. | coauthors=P.J. Hilton | title=A Comprehensive Textbook of Classical Mathematics: A Contemporary Interpretation | year=1970 | publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold | location=London | isbn=0-442-02863-6. {{LCC|QA37.2|G75}}}}<br />
*:This book grew out of a course for [[Birmingham]]-area [[grammar school]] mathematics teachers. The course was intended to convey a university-level perspective on [[mathematics education|school mathematics]], and the book is aimed at students "who have reached roughly the level of completing one year of specialist mathematical study at a university". The real numbers are constructed in Chapter 24, "perhaps the most difficult chapter in the entire book", although the authors ascribe much of the difficulty to their use of [[ideal theory]], which is not reproduced here. (pp.vii, xiv)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Kempner |first=A.J. |title=Anormal Systems of Numeration |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=43 |number=10 |month=December |year=1936 |pages=610–617 |doi=10.2307/2300532 |issue=10 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Komornik, Vilmos; and Paola Loreti |title=Unique Developments in Non-Integer Bases |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=105 |number=7 |year=1998 |pages=636–639 |doi=10.2307/2589246 |issue=7 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=A Theorem on Repeating Decimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=74 |number=6 |year=1967 |pages=669–673 |doi=10.2307/2314251 |issue=6 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=Repeating Decimals |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=15 |number=4 |month=September |year=1984 |pages=299–308 |doi=10.2307/2686394 |issue=4 }}<br />
*{{cite web | url=http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0605182 |title=Midy's Theorem for Periodic Decimals |last=Lewittes |first=Joseph |work=New York Number Theory Workshop on Combinatorial and Additive Number Theory |year=2006 |publisher=[[arXiv]]}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Lightstone |first=A.H. |title=Infinitesimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |year=1972 |volume=79 |number=3 |month=March |pages=242–251 |doi=10.2307/2316619 |issue=3 }}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mankiewicz |first=Richard |year=2000 |title=The story of mathematics|publisher=Cassell |isbn=0-304-35473-2}}<br />
*:Mankiewicz seeks to represent "the history of mathematics in an accessible style" by combining visual and qualitative aspects of mathematics, mathematicians' writings, and historical sketches. (p.8)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Maor |first=Eli |title=To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite |year=1987 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=3-7643-3325-1}}<br />
*:A topical rather than chronological review of infinity, this book is "intended for the general reader" but "told from the point of view of a mathematician". On the dilemma of rigor versus readable language, Maor comments, "I hope I have succeeded in properly addressing this problem." (pp.x-xiii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mazur |first=Joseph |title=Euclid in the Rainforest: Discovering Universal Truths in Logic and Math |year=2005 |publisher=Pearson: Pi Press |isbn=0-13-147994-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Munkres |first=James R. |title=Topology |year=2000 |origyear=1975 |edition=2e |publisher=Prentice-Hall |isbn=0-13-181629-2}}<br />
*:Intended as an introduction "at the senior or first-year graduate level" with no formal prerequisites: "I do not even assume the reader knows much set theory." (p.xi) Munkres' treatment of the reals is axiomatic; he claims of bare-hands constructions, "This way of approaching the subject takes a good deal of time and effort and is of greater logical than mathematical interest." (p.30)<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Núñez |first=Rafael |title=Do Real Numbers Really Move? Language, Thought, and Gesture: The Embodied Cognitive Foundations of Mathematics |year=2006 |booktitle=18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics |publisher=Springer |pages=160–181 |url=http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/publications.html | id=ISBN 978-0-387-25717-4}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pedrick |first=George |title=A First Course in Analysis |year=1994 |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94108-8}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Petkovšek |first=Marko |title=Ambiguous Numbers are Dense |journal=[[American Mathematical Monthly]] |volume=97 |number=5 |month=May |year=1990 |pages=408–411 |doi=10.2307/2324393 |issue=5 }}<br />
*{{cite conference |author=Pinto, Márcia and David Tall |title=Following students' development in a traditional university analysis course |booktitle=PME25 |pages=v4: 57–64 |year=2001 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001j-pme25-pinto-tall.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Protter, M.H. and [[Charles B. Morrey, Jr.|C.B. Morrey]] |year=1991 |edition=2e |title=A first course in real analysis |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-97437-7}}<br />
*:This book aims to "present a theoretical foundation of analysis that is suitable for students who have completed a standard course in calculus." (p.vii) At the end of Chapter 2, the authors assume as an axiom for the real numbers that bounded, nodecreasing sequences converge, later proving the nested intervals theorem and the least upper bound property. (pp.56–64) Decimal expansions appear in Appendix 3, "Expansions of real numbers in any base". (pp.503–507)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pugh |first=Charles Chapman |title=Real mathematical analysis |year=2001 |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=0-387-95297-7}}<br />
*:While assuming familiarity with the rational numbers, Pugh introduces [[Dedekind cut]]s as soon as possible, saying of the axiomatic treatment, "This is something of a fraud, considering that the entire structure of analysis is built on the real number system." (p.10) After proving the least upper bound property and some allied facts, cuts are not used in the rest of the book.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Renteln, Paul and Allan Dundes |year=2005 |month=January |title=Foolproof: A Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humor |journal=[[Notices of the AMS]] |volume=52 |number=1 |pages=24–34 |url=http://www.ams.org/notices/200501/fea-dundes.pdf|doi=|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |first=Fred |last=Richman |year=1999 |month=December |title=Is 0.999… = 1? |journal=[[Mathematics Magazine]] |volume=72 |issue=5 |pages=396–400 }} Free HTML preprint: {{cite web |url=http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm |first=Fred|last=Richman|title=Is 0.999… = 1? |date=1999-06-08 |accessdate=2006-08-23}} Note: the journal article contains material and wording not found in the preprint.<br />
*{{cite book |last=Robinson |first=Abraham |authorlink=Abraham Robinson |title=Non-standard analysis |year=1996 |edition=Revised |publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=0-691-04490-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rosenlicht |first=Maxwell |year=1985 |title=Introduction to Analysis |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-65038-3}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rudin |first=Walter |authorlink=Walter Rudin |title=Principles of mathematical analysis |edition=3e |year=1976 |origyear=1953 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=0-07-054235-X}}<br />
*:A textbook for an advanced undergraduate course. "Experience has convinced me that it is pedagogically unsound (though logically correct) to start off with the construction of the real numbers from the rational ones. At the beginning, most students simply fail to appreciate the need for doing this. Accordingly, the real number system is introduced as an ordered field with the least-upper-bound property, and a few interesting applications of this property are quickly made. However, Dedekind's construction is not omitted. It is now in an Appendix to Chapter 1, where it may be studied and enjoyed whenever the time is ripe." (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Shrader-Frechette |first=Maurice |title=Complementary Rational Numbers |journal=Mathematics Magazine |volume=51 |number=2 |month=March |year=1978 |pages=90–98 }}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Smith, Charles and Charles Harrington |year=1895 |title=Arithmetic for Schools |publisher=Macmillan |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02029670&pg=PA115}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Sohrab |first=Houshang |title=Basic Real Analysis |year=2003 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=0-8176-4211-0}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=Ian |title=The Foundations of Mathematics |year=1977 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-853165-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=James |title=Calculus: Early transcendentals |edition=4e |year=1999 |publisher=Brooks/Cole |isbn=0-534-36298-2}}<br />
*:This book aims to "assist students in discovering calculus" and "to foster conceptual understanding". (p.v) It omits proofs of the foundations of calculus.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=D.O. Tall and R.L.E. Schwarzenberger |title=Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits |journal=Mathematics Teaching |year=1978 |volume=82 |pages=44–49 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1978c-with-rolph.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |authorlink=David O. Tall |title=Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics |journal=Mathematical Education for Teaching |year=1976/7 |volume=2 |number=4 |pages=2–18 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1976a-confl-catastrophy.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |title=Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology |journal=Mathematics Education Research Journal |year=2000 |volume=12 |number=3 |pages=210–230 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001b-merj-amt.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book|last=von Mangoldt|first=Dr. Hans|authorlink =Hans Carl Friedrich von Mangoldt| title=Einführung in die höhere Mathematik|edition=1st|year=1911|publisher=Verlag von S. Hirzel| location=Leipzig|language=German|chapter=Reihenzahlen}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Wallace |first=David Foster|authorlink =David Foster Wallace |title=Everything and more: a compact history of infinity |year=2003 |publisher=Norton |isbn=0-393-00338-8}}<br />
{{refend}}<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
{{Spoken Wikipedia|0.999....ogg|2006-10-19}}<br />
{{commons|0.999...}}<br />
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/999999.shtml .999999… = 1?] from [[cut-the-knot]]<br />
* [http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html Why does 0.9999… = 1 ?]<br />
* [http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99167.htm Ask A Scientist: Repeating Decimals]<br />
* [http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.00/joan2.html Proof of the equality based on arithmetic]<br />
* [http://descmath.com/diag/nines.html Repeating Nines]<br />
* [http://qntm.org/pointnine Point nine recurring equals one]<br />
* [http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/themes/limits-infinity.html David Tall's research on mathematics cognition]<br />
* [http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html What is so wrong with thinking of real numbers as infinite decimals?]<br />
* [http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/0.999....html Theorem 0.999...] on [[Metamath]]<br />
* [http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ Hackenstrings, and the 0.999... ?= 1 FAQ]<br />
* [http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-friendly-chat-about-whether-0-999-1/ A Friendly Chat About Whether 0.999… = 1]<br />
*Katz, K.; [[Mikhail Katz|Katz, M.]] (2010) When is .999... less than 1? [[The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast]], Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3--30. http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/vol7no1/<br />
<br />
{{featured article}}<br />
<br />
<!-- [[en:0.999...]] --><br />
<br />
[[Category:One]]<br />
[[Category:Mathematics paradoxes]]<br />
[[Category:Real analysis]]<br />
[[Category:Real numbers]]<br />
[[Category:Numeration]]<br />
[[Category:Articles containing proofs]]<br />
<br />
{{Link FA|hu}}<br />
{{Link FA|ja}}<br />
{{Link FA|zh}}<br />
<br />
[[ar:0.999...]]<br />
[[be:0,(9)]]<br />
[[be-x-old:0,(9)]]<br />
[[bg:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ca:0,999...]]<br />
[[da:0,999...]]<br />
[[de:Eins#Periodischer Dezimalbruch]]<br />
[[el:0,999...]]<br />
[[es:0,9 periódico]]<br />
[[eo:0,999...]]<br />
[[fa:۰٫۹۹۹…]]<br />
[[fr:Développement décimal de l'unité]]<br />
[[ko:0.999…]]<br />
[[id:0,999...]]<br />
[[it:0,999...]]<br />
[[he:0.999...]]<br />
[[ka:0.999...]]<br />
[[lv:0,999...]]<br />
[[hu:0,999…]]<br />
[[ml:0.999...]]<br />
[[ms:0.999...]]<br />
[[nl:Repeterende breuk#Repeterende negens]]<br />
[[ja:0.999...]]<br />
[[no:0,999...]]<br />
[[nov:0.999...]]<br />
[[uz:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pl:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pt:0,999...]]<br />
[[ro:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ru:0,(9)]]<br />
[[sl:0,999...]]<br />
[[fi:0,999...]]<br />
[[sv:0,999...]]<br />
[[ta:0.999...]]<br />
[[th:0.999...]]<br />
[[tr:0,999...]]<br />
[[vi:0,999...]]<br />
[[yo:0.999...]]<br />
[[zh:0.999…]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=0,999%E2%80%A6&diff=1274355110,999…2010-02-13T12:26:21Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Generalizations */ link to moved page</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- NOTE: The content of this article is well-established. If you have an argument against one or more of the proofs listed here, please read the FAQ on [[Talk:0.999...]], or discuss it on [[Talk:0.999.../Arguments]]. However, please understand that the earlier, more naive proofs are not as rigorous as the later ones as they intend to appeal to intuition, and as such may require further justification to be complete. Thank you. --><br />
[[Image:999 Perspective.png|300px|right]]<br />
<br />
In [[mathematics]], the [[repeating decimal]] '''0.999…''' which may also be written as <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em"> 0.\bar{9}</math>, <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em">0.\dot{9}</math> or <math style="position:relative;top:-.2em"> 0.(9)\,\!</math>, denotes a [[real number]] equal to [[1 (number)|the number '''one''']]. In other words, the notations ''0.999…'' and ''1'' represent the same number within the real number system. [[mathematical proof|Proofs]] of this [[equality (mathematics)|equality]] have been formulated with varying degrees of [[mathematical rigour]], taking into account preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience.<br />
<br />
That certain real numbers can be represented by more than one digit string is not limited to the decimal system. The same phenomenon occurs in all [[integer]] [[radix|base]]s, and mathematicians have also quantified the ways of writing 1 in [[Non-integer representation|non-integer bases]]. Nor is this phenomenon unique to 1: every non-zero, terminating decimal has a twin with trailing 9s, such as 28.3287 and 28.3286999…. For simplicity, the terminating decimal is almost always the preferred representation, contributing to a misconception that it is the ''only'' representation. Even more generally, any [[positional numeral system]] contains infinitely many numbers with multiple representations. These various identities have been applied to better understand patterns in the decimal expansions of [[fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s and the structure of a simple [[fractal]], the [[Cantor set]]. They also occur in a classic investigation of the infinitude of the entire set of real numbers.<br />
<br />
The ''0.999...=1'' [[Equality (mathematics)|equality]] has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. In the last few decades, researchers of [[mathematics education]] have studied the reception of this equality among students, many of whom initially question or reject this equality. Many are persuaded by an [[Argument_from_authority|appeal to authority]] from textbooks and teachers, or by arithmetic reasoning as below to accept that the two are equal. However, some are often uneasy enough that they seek further justification. The students' reasoning for denying or affirming the equality is typically based on one of a few common errors triggered by [[counterintuitive]] behavior of the real numbers; for example that each real number has a unique [[decimal expansion]], that nonzero [[infinitesimal]] real numbers should exist, or that the expansion of 0.999… eventually terminates. <br />
<br />
Number systems can be constructed bearing out some of these intuitions, and in some of which the equality is false. Though these number systems are different to the standard [[real number]] system used in elementary, and most higher, mathematics. Indeed, some settings contain numbers that are "just shy" of 1; these are generally unrelated to 0.999…, but they are of considerable interest in [[mathematical analysis]].<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
0.999… is a number written in the [[decimal]] [[numeral system]], and some of the simplest proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the convenient [[arithmetic]] properties of this system. Most of decimal arithmetic—[[addition]], [[subtraction]], [[multiplication]], [[division (mathematics)|division]], and [[inequality|comparison]]—uses manipulations at the digit level that are much the same as those for [[integer]]s. As with integers, any two ''finite'' decimals with different digits mean different numbers (ignoring trailing zeros). In particular, any number of the form 0.99…9, where the 9s eventually stop, is strictly less than 1.<br />
<br />
Misinterpreting the meaning of the use of the "…" ([[ellipsis]]) in 0.999… accounts for some of the misunderstanding about its equality to 1. The use here is different from the usage in language or in 0.99…9, in which the ellipsis specifies that some ''finite'' portion is left unstated or otherwise omitted. When used to specify a [[recurring decimal]], "…" means that some ''infinite'' portion is left unstated, which can only be interpreted as a number by using the mathematical concept of [[limit of a sequence|limits]]. As a result, in conventional mathematical usage, the value assigned to the notation "0.999…" is defined to be the [[real number]] which is the [[limit of a sequence|limit]] of the [[convergent sequence]] (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, …).<br />
<br />
Unlike the case with integers and finite decimals, other notations can also express a single number in multiple ways. For example, using [[Fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s, {{frac|1|3}} = {{frac|2|6}}. Infinite decimals, however, can express the same number in at most two different ways. If there are two ways, then one of them must end with an infinite series of nines, and the other must terminate (that is, consist of a recurring series of zeros from a certain point on).<br />
<br />
There are many proofs that 0.999… = 1, of varying degrees of mathematical rigour. A short sketch of one rigorous proof can be simply stated as follows. Consider that two [[real number]]s are identical [[if and only if]] their difference is equal to zero. Most people would agree that the difference between 0.999… and 1, if it exists at all, must be very small. By considering the convergence of the sequence above, we can show that the magnitude of this difference must be smaller than any positive quantity, and it can be shown (see [[Archimedean property]] for details) that the only real number with this property is 0. Since the difference is 0 it follows that the numbers 1 and 0.999… are identical. The same argument also explains why 0.333… = {{frac|1|3}}, 0.111… = {{frac|1|9}}, etc.<br />
<br />
==Proofs==<br />
===Algebraic===<br />
====Fractions and long division====<br />
<br />
One reason that infinite decimals are a necessary extension of finite decimals is to represent fractions. Using [[long division]], a simple division of integers like {{frac|1|3}} becomes a recurring decimal, 0.333…, in which the digits repeat without end. This decimal yields a quick proof for 0.999… = 1. Multiplication of 3 times 3 produces 9 in each digit, so 3 × 0.333… equals 0.999…. And 3 × {{frac|1|3}} equals 1, so 0.999… = 1.<ref name="CME">cf. with the binary version of the same argument in [[Silvanus P. Thompson]], ''Calculus made easy'', St. Martin's Press, New York, 1998. ISBN 0-312-18548-0.</ref><br />
<br />
Another form of this proof multiplies {{frac|1|9}} = 0.111… by 9.<br />
<br />
:{| style="wikitable"<br />
|<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.333\dots &{} = \frac{1}{3} \\<br />
3 \times 0.333\dots &{} = 3 \times \frac{1}{3} = \frac{3 \times 1}{3} \\<br />
0.999\dots &{} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
|width="25px"|<br />
|width="25px" style="border-left:1px solid silver;"|<br />
|<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.111\dots & {} = \frac{1}{9} \\<br />
9 \times 0.111\dots & {} = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} = \frac{9 \times 1}{9} \\<br />
0.999\dots & {} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
|}<br />
<br />
A more compact version of the same proof is given by the following equations:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
1 = \frac{9}{9} = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} = 9 \times 0.111\dots = 0.999\dots<br />
</math><br />
<br />
Since both equations are valid, 0.999… must equal 1 (by the [[transitive property]]). Similarly, {{frac|3|3}} = 1, and {{frac|3|3}} = 0.999…. So, 0.999… must equal 1.<br />
<br />
====Digit manipulation====<br />
<br />
Another kind of proof more easily adapts to other repeating decimals. When a number in decimal notation is multiplied by 10, the digits do not change but the decimal separator moves one place to the right. Thus 10 × 0.999… equals 9.999…, which is 9 greater than the original number.<br />
<br />
To see this, consider that subtracting 0.999… from 9.999… can proceed digit by digit; in each of the digits after the decimal separator the result is 9 − 9, which is 0. But trailing zeros do not change a number, so the difference is exactly 9. The final step uses algebra:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
x &= 0.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x &= 9.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x - x &= 9.999\ldots - 0.999\ldots \\<br />
9 x &= 9 \\<br />
x &= 1 \\<br />
0.999\ldots &= 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The validity of the digit manipulations in the above two proofs does not have to be taken on faith or as an axiom; it follows from the fundamental relationship between decimals and the numbers they represent. This relationship, which can be developed in several equivalent manners, already establishes that the decimals 0.999… and 1.000… both represent the same number.<br />
<br />
===Analytic===<br />
Since the question of 0.999… does not affect the formal development of mathematics, it can be postponed until one proves the standard theorems of [[real analysis]]. One requirement is to characterize real numbers that can be written in decimal notation, consisting of an optional sign, a finite sequence of any number of digits forming an integer part, a decimal separator, and a sequence of digits forming a fractional part. For the purpose of discussing 0.999…, the integer part can be summarized as ''b''<sub>0</sub> and one can neglect negatives, so a decimal expansion has the form<br />
:<math>b_0.b_1b_2b_3b_4b_5\dots</math><br />
<br />
It is vital that the fraction part, unlike the integer part, is not limited to a finite number of digits. This is a [[positional notation]], so for example the 5 in 500 contributes ten times as much as the 5 in 50, and the 5 in 0.05 contributes one tenth as much as the 5 in 0.5.<br />
<br />
====Infinite series and sequences====<br />
{{further|[[Decimal representation]]}}<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most common development of decimal expansions is to define them as sums of [[infinite series]]. In general:<br />
:<math>b_0 . b_1 b_2 b_3 b_4 \ldots = b_0 + b_1\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right) + b_2\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + b_3\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + b_4\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^4 + \cdots .</math><br />
<br />
For 0.999… one can apply the [[convergent series|convergence]] theorem concerning [[geometric series]]:<ref>Rudin p.61, Theorem 3.26; J. Stewart p.706</ref><br />
:If <math>|r| < 1 \,\!</math> then <math>ar+ar^2+ar^3+\cdots = \frac{ar}{1-r}.</math><br />
<br />
Since 0.999… is such a sum with a common ratio <math>r=\textstyle\frac{1}{10}</math>, the theorem makes short work of the question:<br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = 9\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right) + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)}{1-{\tfrac{1}{10}}} = 1.\,</math><br />
This proof (actually, that 10 equals 9.999…) appears as early as 1770 in [[Leonhard Euler]]'s ''[[Elements of Algebra]]''.<ref>Euler p.170</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:base4 333.svg|left|thumb|200px|Limits: The unit interval, including the '''base-4''' decimal sequence (.3, .33, .333, …) converging to 1.]]<br />
The sum of a geometric series is itself a result even older than Euler. A typical 18th-century derivation used a term-by-term manipulation similar to the [[#Algebra|algebra proof]] given above, and as late as 1811, Bonnycastle's textbook ''An Introduction to Algebra'' uses such an argument for geometric series to justify the same maneuver on 0.999….<ref>Grattan-Guinness p.69; Bonnycastle p.177</ref> A 19th-century reaction against such liberal summation methods resulted in the definition that still dominates today: the sum of a series is ''defined'' to be the limit of the sequence of its partial sums. A corresponding proof of the theorem explicitly computes that sequence; it can be found in any proof-based introduction to calculus or analysis.<ref>For example, J. Stewart p.706, Rudin p.61, Protter and Morrey p.213, Pugh p.180, J.B. Conway p.31</ref><br />
<br />
A [[sequence]] (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …) has a [[limit of a sequence|limit]] ''x'' if the distance |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>| becomes arbitrarily small as ''n'' increases. The statement that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 can itself be interpreted and proven as a limit:<ref>The limit follows, for example, from Rudin p. 57, Theorem 3.20e. For a more direct approach, see also Finney, Weir, Giordano (2001) ''Thomas' Calculus: Early Transcendentals'' 10ed, Addison-Wesley, New York. Section 8.1, example 2(a), example 6(b).</ref><br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = \lim_{n\to\infty}0.\underbrace{ 99\ldots9 }_{n} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k = 1}^n\frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{10^n}\right) = 1-\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 1.\,</math><br />
<br />
The last step&nbsp;— that <math>\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{10^n} = 0</math>&nbsp;— is often justified by the axiom that the real numbers have the [[Archimedean property]]. This limit-based attitude towards 0.999… is often put in more evocative but less precise terms. For example, the 1846 textbook ''The University Arithmetic'' explains, ".999 +, continued to infinity = 1, because every annexation of a 9 brings the value closer to 1"; the 1895 ''Arithmetic for Schools'' says, "…when a large number of 9s is taken, the difference between 1 and .99999… becomes inconceivably small".<ref>Davies p.175; Smith and Harrington p.115</ref> Such [[heuristic]]s are often interpreted by students as implying that 0.999… itself is less than 1.<br />
<br />
====Nested intervals and least upper bounds====<br />
{{further|[[Nested intervals]]}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:999 Intervals C.svg|right|thumb|250px|Nested intervals: in base 3, 1 = 1.000… = 0.222…]]<br />
The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it.<br />
<br />
If a real number ''x'' is known to lie in the [[closed interval]] [0, 10] (i.e., it is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 10), one can imagine dividing that interval into ten pieces that overlap only at their endpoints: [0, 1], [1, 2], [2, 3], and so on up to [9, 10]. The number ''x'' must belong to one of these; if it belongs to [2, 3] then one records the digit "2" and subdivides that interval into [2, 2.1], [2.1, 2.2], …, [2.8, 2.9], [2.9, 3]. Continuing this process yields an infinite sequence of [[nested intervals]], labeled by an infinite sequence of digits ''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>2</sub>, ''b''<sub>3</sub>, …, and one writes<br />
:''x'' = ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>…<br />
<br />
In this formalism, the identities 1 = 0.999… and 1 = 1.000… reflect, respectively, the fact that 1 lies in both [0, 1] and [1, 2], so one can choose either subinterval when finding its digits. To ensure that this notation does not abuse the "=" sign, one needs a way to reconstruct a unique real number for each decimal. This can be done with limits, but other constructions continue with the ordering theme.<ref>Beals p.22; I. Stewart p.34</ref><br />
<br />
One straightforward choice is the [[nested intervals theorem]], which guarantees that given a sequence of nested, closed intervals whose lengths become arbitrarily small, the intervals contain exactly one real number in their [[intersection (set theory)|intersection]]. So ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is defined to be the unique number contained within all the intervals [''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub> + 1], [''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub> + 0.1], and so on. 0.999… is then the unique real number that lies in all of the intervals [0, 1], [0.9, 1], [0.99, 1], and [0.99…9, 1] for every finite string of 9s. Since 1 is an element of each of these intervals, 0.999… = 1.<ref>Bartle and Sherbert pp.60–62; Pedrick p.29; Sohrab p.46</ref><br />
<br />
The Nested Intervals Theorem is usually founded upon a more fundamental characteristic of the real numbers: the existence of [[least upper bound]]s or ''suprema''. To directly exploit these objects, one may define ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… to be the least upper bound of the set of approximants {''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>, …}.<ref>Apostol pp.9, 11–12; Beals p.22; Rosenlicht p.27</ref> One can then show that this definition (or the nested intervals definition) is consistent with the subdivision procedure, implying 0.999… = 1 again. Tom Apostol concludes,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The fact that a real number might have two different decimal representations is merely a reflection of the fact that two different sets of real numbers can have the same supremum.<ref>Apostol p.12</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
===Based on the construction of the real numbers===<br />
{{further|[[Construction of the real numbers]]}}<br />
<br />
Some approaches explicitly define real numbers to be certain [[construction of the real numbers|structures built upon the rational numbers]], using [[axiomatic set theory]]. The [[natural number]]s&nbsp;— 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on&nbsp;— begin with 0 and continue upwards, so that every number has a successor. One can extend the natural numbers with their negatives to give all the [[integer]]s, and to further extend to ratios, giving the [[rational number]]s. These number systems are accompanied by the arithmetic of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. More subtly, they include [[order theory|ordering]], so that one number can be compared to another and found to be less than, greater than, or equal to another number.<br />
<br />
The step from rationals to reals is a major extension. There are at least two popular ways to achieve this step, both published in 1872: [[Dedekind cut]]s and [[Cauchy sequence]]s. Proofs that 0.999… = 1 which directly use these constructions are not found in textbooks on real analysis, where the modern trend for the last few decades has been to use an axiomatic analysis. Even when a construction is offered, it is usually applied towards proving the axioms of the real numbers, which then support the above proofs. However, several authors express the idea that starting with a construction is more logically appropriate, and the resulting proofs are more self-contained.<ref>The historical synthesis is claimed by Griffiths and Hilton (p.xiv) in 1970 and again by Pugh (p.10) in 2001; both actually prefer Dedekind cuts to axioms. For the use of cuts in textbooks, see Pugh p.17 or Rudin p.17. For viewpoints on logic, Pugh p.10, Rudin p.ix, or Munkres p.30</ref><br />
<br />
====Dedekind cuts====<br />
{{further|[[Dedekind cut]]}}<br />
<br />
In the [[Dedekind cut]] approach, each real number ''x'' is defined as the [[infinite set]] of all rational numbers that are less than ''x''.<ref>Enderton (p.113) qualifies this description: "The idea behind Dedekind cuts is that a real number ''x'' can be named by giving an infinite set of rationals, namely all the rationals less than ''x''. We will in effect define ''x'' to be the set of rationals smaller than ''x''. To avoid circularity in the definition, we must be able to characterize the sets of rationals obtainable in this way…"</ref> In particular, the real number 1 is the set of all rational numbers that are less than 1.<ref>Rudin pp.17–20, Richman p.399, or Enderton p.119. To be precise, Rudin, Richman, and Enderton call this cut 1*, 1<sup>−</sup>, and 1<sub>''R''</sub>, respectively; all three identify it with the traditional real number 1. Note that what Rudin and Enderton call a Dedekind cut, Richman calls a "nonprincipal Dedekind cut".</ref> Every positive decimal expansion easily determines a Dedekind cut: the set of rational numbers which are less than some stage of the expansion. So the real number 0.999… is the set of rational numbers ''r'' such that ''r'' < 0, or ''r'' < 0.9, or ''r'' < 0.99, or ''r'' is less than some other number of the form <math>\begin{align}1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^n\end{align}</math>.<ref>Richman p.399</ref> Every element of 0.999… is less than 1, so it is an element of the real number 1. Conversely, an element of 1 is a rational number<br />
<math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1\end{align}</math>, which implies <math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^b\end{align}</math>. Since 0.999… and 1 contain the same rational numbers, they are the same set: 0.999… = 1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Dedekind cuts was first published by [[Richard Dedekind]] in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2">{{cite web |url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Real_numbers_2.html |title=History topic: The real numbers: Stevin to Hilbert |author=J J O'Connor and E F Robertson |work=MacTutor History of Mathematics |month=October | year=2005 |accessdate=2006-08-30}}</ref><br />
The above approach to assigning a real number to each decimal expansion is due to an expository paper titled "Is 0.999 … = 1?" by Fred Richman in ''[[Mathematics Magazine]]'', which is targeted at teachers of collegiate mathematics, especially at the junior/senior level, and their students.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.maa.org/pubs/mm-guide.html |title=Mathematics Magazine:Guidelines for Authors |publisher=[[Mathematical Association of America]] |accessdate=2006-08-23}}</ref> Richman notes that taking Dedekind cuts in any [[dense subset]] of the rational numbers yields the same results; in particular, he uses [[decimal fraction]]s, for which the proof is more immediate: "So we see that in the traditional definition of the real numbers, the equation 0.9* = 1 is built in at the beginning."<ref>Richman pp.398–399</ref> A further modification of the procedure leads to a different structure that Richman is more interested in describing; see "[[#Alternative number systems|Alternative number systems]]" below.<br />
<br />
====Cauchy sequences====<br />
{{further|[[Cauchy sequence]]}}<br />
<br />
Another approach to constructing the real numbers uses the ordering of rationals less directly. First, the distance between ''x'' and ''y'' is defined as the absolute value |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''|, where the absolute value |''z''| is defined as the maximum of ''z'' and −''z'', thus never negative. Then the reals are defined to be the sequences of rationals that have the [[Cauchy sequence]] property using this distance. That is, in the sequence (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …), a mapping from natural numbers to rationals, for any positive rational δ there is an ''N'' such that |''x''<sub>''m''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>|&nbsp;≤&nbsp;δ for all ''m'', ''n''&nbsp;>&nbsp;''N''. (The distance between terms becomes smaller than any positive rational.)<ref>Griffiths & Hilton §24.2 "Sequences" p.386</ref><br />
<br />
If (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>) and (''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) are two Cauchy sequences, then they are defined to be equal as real numbers if the sequence (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) has the limit 0. Truncations of the decimal number ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… generate a sequence of rationals which is Cauchy; this is taken to define the real value of the number.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.388, 393</ref> Thus in this formalism the task is to show that the sequence of rational numbers<br />
:<math>\left(1 - 0, 1 - {9 \over 10}, 1 - {99 \over 100}, \dots\right)<br />
= \left(1, {1 \over 10}, {1 \over 100}, \dots \right)</math><br />
<br />
has the limit 0. Considering the ''n''th term of the sequence, for ''n''=0,1,2,…, it must therefore be shown that<br />
:<math>\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 0.</math><br />
<br />
This limit is plain;<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.395</ref> one possible proof is that for ε = ''a''/''b'' > 0 one can take ''N''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''b'' in the definition of the [[limit of a sequence]]. So again 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Cauchy sequences was first published separately by [[Eduard Heine]] and [[Georg Cantor]], also in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2" /> The above approach to decimal expansions, including the proof that 0.999… = 1, closely follows Griffiths & Hilton's 1970 work ''A comprehensive textbook of classical mathematics: A contemporary interpretation''. The book is written specifically to offer a second look at familiar concepts in a contemporary light.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.viii, 395</ref><br />
<br />
==Generalizations==<br />
The result that 0.999… = 1 generalizes readily in two ways. First, every nonzero number with a finite decimal notation (equivalently, endless trailing 0s) has a counterpart with trailing 9s. For example, 0.24999… equals 0.25, exactly as in the special case considered. These numbers are exactly the decimal fractions, and they are [[Dense set|dense]].<ref>Petkovšek p.408</ref><br />
<br />
Second, a comparable theorem applies in each radix or [[base (mathematics)|base]]. For example, in base 2 (the [[binary numeral system]]) 0.111… equals 1, and in base 3 (the [[ternary numeral system]]) 0.222… equals 1. Textbooks of real analysis are likely to skip the example of 0.999… and present one or both of these generalizations from the start.<ref>Protter and Morrey p.503; Bartle and Sherbert p.61</ref><br />
<br />
Alternative representations of 1 also occur in non-integer bases. For example, in the [[golden ratio base]], the two standard representations are 1.000… and 0.101010…, and there are infinitely many more representations that include adjacent 1s. Generally, for [[almost all]] ''q'' between 1 and 2, there are uncountably many base-''q'' expansions of 1. On the other hand, there are still uncountably many ''q'' (including all natural numbers greater than 1) for which there is only one base-''q'' expansion of 1, other than the trivial 1.000…. This result was first obtained by [[Paul Erdős]], Miklos Horváth, and István Joó around 1990. In 1998 Vilmos Komornik and Paola Loreti determined the smallest such base, the [[Komornik–Loreti constant]] ''q'' = 1.787231650…. In this base, 1 = 0.11010011001011010010110011010011…; the digits are given by the [[Thue–Morse sequence]], which does not repeat.<ref>Komornik and Loreti p.636</ref><br />
<br />
A more far-reaching generalization addresses [[non-standard positional numeral systems|the most general positional numeral systems]]. They too have multiple representations, and in some sense the difficulties are even worse. For example:<ref>Kempner p.611; Petkovšek p.409</ref><br />
*In the [[balanced ternary]] system, <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> = 0.111… = 1.<u>111</u>….<br />
*In the reverse [[factorial number system]] (using bases 2,3,4,... for positions ''after'' the decimal point), 1 = 1.000… = 0.1234….<br />
Marko Petkovšek has proved that such ambiguities are necessary consequences of using a positional system: for any such system that names all the real numbers, the set of reals with multiple representations is always dense. He calls the proof "an instructive exercise in elementary [[point-set topology]]"; it involves viewing sets of positional values as [[Stone space]]s and noticing that their real representations are given by [[continuous function (topology)|continuous functions]].<ref>Petkovšek pp.410–411</ref><br />
<br />
==Applications==<br />
One application of 0.999… as a representation of 1 occurs in elementary [[number theory]]. In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation on the appearance of 9s in the repeating-decimal representations of fractions whose denominators are certain [[prime number]]s. Examples include:<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>7</sub> = 0.142857142857… and 142 + 857 = 999.<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>73</sub> = 0.0136986301369863… and 0136 + 9863 = 9999.<br />
E. Midy proved a general result about such fractions, now called ''[[Midy's theorem]]'', in 1836. The publication was obscure, and it is unclear if his proof directly involved 0.999…, but at least one modern proof by W. G. Leavitt does. If one can prove that a decimal of the form 0.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is a positive integer, then it must be 0.999…, which is then the source of the 9s in the theorem.<ref>Leavitt 1984 p.301</ref> Investigations in this direction can motivate such concepts as [[greatest common divisor]]s, [[modular arithmetic]], [[Fermat prime]]s, [[order (group theory)|order]] of [[group (mathematics)|group]] elements, and [[quadratic reciprocity]].<ref>Lewittes pp.1–3; Leavitt 1967 pp.669,673; Shrader-Frechette pp.96–98</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:Cantor base 3.svg|right|thumb|Positions of <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>, <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub>, and 1 in the [[Cantor set]]]]<br />
Returning to real analysis, the base-3 analogue 0.222… = 1 plays a key role in a characterization of one of the simplest [[fractal]]s, the middle-thirds [[Cantor set]]:<br />
*A point in the [[unit interval]] lies in the Cantor set if and only if it can be represented in ternary using only the digits 0 and 2.<br />
<br />
The ''n''th digit of the representation reflects the position of the point in the ''n''th stage of the construction. For example, the point ²⁄<sub>3</sub> is given the usual representation of 0.2 or 0.2000…, since it lies to the right of the first deletion and to the left of every deletion thereafter. The point <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> is represented not as 0.1 but as 0.0222…, since it lies to the left of the first deletion and to the right of every deletion thereafter.<ref>Pugh p.97; Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke pp.150–152. Protter and Morrey (p.507) and Pedrick (p.29) assign this description as an exercise.</ref><br />
<br />
Repeating nines also turn up in yet another of Georg Cantor's works. They must be taken into account to construct a valid proof, applying [[Cantor's diagonal argument|his 1891 diagonal argument]] to decimal expansions, of the [[uncountability]] of the unit interval. Such a proof needs to be able to declare certain pairs of real numbers to be different based on their decimal expansions, so one needs to avoid pairs like 0.2 and 0.1999… . A simple method represents all numbers with nonterminating expansions; the opposite method rules out repeating nines.<ref>Maor (p.60) and Mankiewicz (p.151) review the former method; Mankiewicz attributes it to Cantor, but the primary source is unclear. Munkres (p.50) mentions the latter method.</ref> A variant that may be closer to Cantor's original argument actually uses base 2, and by turning base-3 expansions into base-2 expansions, one can prove the uncountability of the Cantor set as well.<ref>Rudin p.50, Pugh p.98</ref><br />
<br />
==Skepticism in education==<br />
Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999… and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the [[Limit of a sequence|limit]] concept and disagreements over the nature of [[infinitesimal]]s. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:<br />
*Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a [[paradox]], which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly well-understood number 1.<ref>Bunch p.119; Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6. The last suggestion is due to Burrell (p.28): "Perhaps the most reassuring of all numbers is 1.…So it is particularly unsettling when someone tries to pass off 0.9~ as 1."</ref><br />
*Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger pp.6–7; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an [[infinitesimal]] but non-zero amount.<br />
*Some students believe that the value of a [[convergent series]] is at best an approximation, that <math>0.\bar{9} \approx 1</math>.<br />
These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive [[counterexample]]s to better understand 0.999….<br />
<br />
Many of these explanations were found by professor [[David O. Tall]], who has studied characteristics of teaching and cognition that lead to some of the misunderstandings he has encountered in his college students. Interviewing his students to determine why the vast majority initially rejected the equality, he found that "students continued to conceive of 0.999… as a sequence of numbers getting closer and closer to 1 and not a fixed value, because 'you haven’t specified how many places there are' or 'it is the nearest possible decimal below 1'".<ref>Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
<br />
Of the elementary proofs, multiplying 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> by 3 is apparently a successful strategy for convincing reluctant students that 0.999… = 1. Still, when confronted with the conflict between their belief of the first equation and their disbelief of the second, some students either begin to disbelieve the first equation or simply become frustrated.<ref>Tall 1976 pp.10–14</ref> Nor are more sophisticated methods foolproof: students who are fully capable of applying rigorous definitions may still fall back on intuitive images when they are surprised by a result in advanced mathematics, including 0.999…. For example, one real analysis student was able to prove that 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> using a [[supremum]] definition, but then insisted that 0.999… < 1 based on her earlier understanding of long division.<ref>Pinto and Tall p.5, Edwards and Ward pp.416–417</ref> Others still are able to prove that <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> = 0.333…, but, upon being confronted by the [[#Fractions|fractional proof]], insist that "logic" supersedes the mathematical calculations.<br />
<br />
[[Joseph Mazur]] tells the tale of an otherwise brilliant calculus student of his who "challenged almost everything I said in class but never questioned his calculator," and who had come to believe that nine digits are all one needs to do mathematics, including calculating the square root of 23. The student remained uncomfortable with a limiting argument that 9.99… = 10, calling it a "wildly imagined infinite growing process."<ref>Mazur pp.137–141</ref><br />
<br />
As part of Ed Dubinsky's "[[APOS theory]]" of mathematical learning, Dubinsky and his collaborators (2005) propose that students who conceive of 0.999… as a finite, indeterminate string with an infinitely small distance from 1 have "not yet constructed a complete process conception of the infinite decimal". Other students who have a complete process conception of 0.999… may not yet be able to "encapsulate" that process into an "object conception", like the object conception they have of 1, and so they view the process 0.999… and the object 1 as incompatible. Dubinsky ''et al.'' also link this mental ability of encapsulation to viewing <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> as a number in its own right and to dealing with the set of natural numbers as a whole.<ref>Dubinsky ''et al.'' 261–262</ref><br />
<br />
==In popular culture==<br />
<br />
With the rise of the [[Internet]], debates about 0.999… have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on [[newsgroup]]s and [[message board]]s, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. In the newsgroup <tt>[news:sci.math sci.math]</tt>, arguing over 0.999… is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its [[FAQ]].<ref>As observed by Richman (p.396). {{cite web |url=http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/specialnumbers/0.999eq1/ |author=Hans de Vreught | year=1994 | title=sci.math FAQ: Why is 0.9999… = 1? |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref> The FAQ briefly covers <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>, multiplication by 10, and limits, and it alludes to Cauchy sequences as well.<br />
<br />
A 2003 edition of the general-interest [[newspaper column]] ''[[The Straight Dope]]'' discusses 0.999… via <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> and limits, saying of misconceptions,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The lower primate in us still resists, saying: .999~ doesn't really represent a ''number'', then, but a ''process''. To find a number we have to halt the process, at which point the .999~ = 1 thing falls apart.<br />
<br />
Nonsense.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030711.html |title=An infinite question: Why doesn't .999~ = 1? |date=2003-07-11 |author=[[Cecil Adams]] |work=[[The Straight Dope]] |publisher=[[Chicago Reader]] |accessdate=2006-09-06}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
''The Straight Dope'' cites a discussion on its own message board that grew out of an unidentified "other message board … mostly about video games". In the same vein, the question of 0.999… proved such a popular topic in the first seven years of [[Blizzard Entertainment]]'s [[Battle.net]] forums that the company issued a "press release" on [[April Fools' Day]] 2004 that it is 1:<br />
<blockquote><br />
We are very excited to close the book on this subject once and for all. We've witnessed the heartache and concern over whether .999~ does or does not equal 1, and we're proud that the following proof finally and conclusively addresses the issue for our customers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?040401 |title=Blizzard Entertainment Announces .999~ (Repeating) = 1 |work=Press Release |publisher=Blizzard Entertainment |date=2004-04-01 |accessdate=2009-11-16}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
Two proofs are then offered, based on limits and multiplication by 10.<br />
<br />
0.999… features also in mathematical folklore, specifically in the following joke:<ref>Renteln and Dundes, p.27</ref> <br />
<blockquote><br />
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
A: 0.999999….<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==0.999... in alternative number systems==<br />
Although the real numbers form an extremely useful [[number system]], the decision to interpret the notation "0.999…" as naming a real number is ultimately a convention, and [[Timothy Gowers]] argues in ''Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction'' that the resulting identity 0.999… = 1 is a convention as well:<br />
<blockquote><br />
However, it is by no means an arbitrary convention, because not adopting it forces one either to invent strange new objects or to abandon some of the familiar rules of arithmetic.<ref>Gowers p.60</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
One can define other number systems using different rules or new objects; in some such number systems, the above proofs would need to be reinterpreted and one might find that, in a given number system, 0.999… and 1 might not be identical. However, many number systems are extensions of&nbsp;— rather than independent alternatives to&nbsp;— the real number system, so 0.999… = 1 continues to hold. Even in such number systems, though, it is worthwhile to examine alternative number systems, not only for how 0.999… behaves (if, indeed, a number expressed as "0.999…" is both meaningful and unambiguous), but also for the behavior of related phenomena. If such phenomena differ from those in the real number system, then at least one of the assumptions built into the system must break down.<br />
<br />
===Infinitesimals===<br />
{{main|Infinitesimal}}<br />
<br />
Some proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the [[Archimedean property]] of the standard real numbers: there are no nonzero [[infinitesimal]]s. There are mathematically coherent ordered [[algebraic structure]]s, including various alternatives to standard reals, which are non-Archimedean. The meaning of 0.999… depends on which structure we use. For example, the [[dual number]]s include a new infinitesimal element ε, analogous to the imaginary unit ''i'' in the [[complex number]]s except that ε²&nbsp;=&nbsp;0. The resulting structure is useful in [[automatic differentiation]]. The dual numbers can be given a [[lexicographic order]], in which case the multiples of ε become non-Archimedean elements.<ref>Berz 439–442</ref> Note, however, that, as an extension of the real numbers, the dual numbers still have 0.999…=1. On a related note, while ε exists in dual numbers, so does ε/2, so ε is not "the smallest positive dual number," and, indeed, as in the reals, no such number exists.<br />
<br />
[[Non-standard analysis]] provides a number system with a full array of infinitesimals (and their inverses).<ref>For a full treatment of non-standard numbers see for example Robinson's ''Non-standard Analysis''.</ref> A.H. Lightstone developed a decimal expansion for the non-standard real numbers in (0, 1)<sup>∗</sup>.<ref>Lightstone pp.245–247</ref> Lightstone shows how to associate to each extended real number a sequence of digits<br />
:0.d<sub>1</sub>d<sub>2</sub>d<sub>3</sub>…;…d<sub>∞−1</sub>d<sub>∞</sub>d<sub>∞+1</sub>…<br />
indexed by the extended natural numbers. While he does not directly discuss 0.999…, he shows the real number 1/3 is represented by 0.333…;…333… which is a consequence of the [[transfer principle]]. Multiplying by 3, one obtains analogous facts for expansions with repeating 9s.<br />
The hyperreal number ''u''<sub>''H''</sub>=0.999…;…999000… with ''H''-infinitely many 9s, for some infinite [[hyperinteger]] ''H'', satisfies a strict inequality ''u''<sub>''H''</sub> < 1.{{Fact|date=January 2009}} Indeed, the sequence u<sub>1</sub>=0.9, u<sub>2</sub>=0.99, u<sub>3</sub>=0.999, etc. satisfies u<sub>n</sub> = 1 - 1/n, hence by the transfer principle u<sub>H</sub> = 1 - 1/H < 1. Lightstone shows that in this system 0.333...;...000... and 0.999...;...000... are not numbers. <br />
<br />
Karin Katz and [[Mikhail Katz]] have developed an alternative to the unital evaluation of the symbol "0.999..." The alternative evaluation is <br />
:<math>.\underset{[\mathbb{N}]}{\underbrace{999\ldots}}\; = 1\;-\;\frac{1}{10^{[\mathbb{N}]}}</math>, <br />
where <math>\langle\mathbb{N}\rangle</math> is the sequence <math>\langle1,2,3,\ldots\rangle</math> listing all the natural numbers in increasing order, while <math>[\mathbb{N}]</math> is the infinite [[hypernatural]] represented by the sequence, in the [[ultrapower]] construction; see Katz & Katz (2010).<br />
<br />
[[Combinatorial game theory]] provides alternative reals as well, with infinite Blue-Red [[Hackenbush]] as one particularly relevant example. In 1974, [[Elwyn Berlekamp]] described a correspondence between [[Hackenbush strings]] and binary expansions of real numbers, motivated by the idea of [[data compression]]. For example, the value of the Hackenbush string LRRLRLRL… is 0.010101<sub>2</sub>…&nbsp;=&nbsp;<sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub>. However, the value of LRLLL… (corresponding to 0.111…<sub>2</sub>) is infinitesimally less than 1. The difference between the two is the [[surreal number]] <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>, where ω is the first [[ordinal number|infinite ordinal]]; the relevant game is LRRRR… or 0.000…<sub>2</sub>.<ref>Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy (pp.79–80, 307–311) discuss 1 and <sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub> and touch on <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>. The game for 0.111…<sub>2</sub> follows directly from Berlekamp's Rule, and it is discussed by {{cite web |url=http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ |title=Hackenstrings and the 0.999… ≟ 1 FAQ |author=A. N. Walker |year=1999 |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
===Breaking subtraction===<br />
Another manner in which the proofs might be undermined is if 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… simply does not exist, because subtraction is not always possible. Mathematical structures with an addition operation but not a subtraction operation include [[commutative]] [[semigroup]]s, [[commutative monoid]]s and [[semiring]]s. Richman considers two such systems, designed so that 0.999… < 1.<br />
<br />
First, Richman defines a nonnegative ''decimal number'' to be a literal decimal expansion. He defines the [[lexicographical order]] and an addition operation, noting that 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 simply because 0&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 in the ones place, but for any nonterminating ''x'', one has 0.999…&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''. So one peculiarity of the decimal numbers is that addition cannot always be cancelled; another is that no decimal number corresponds to <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>. After defining multiplication, the decimal numbers form a positive, totally ordered, commutative semiring.<ref>Richman pp.397–399</ref><br />
<br />
In the process of defining multiplication, Richman also defines another system he calls "cut ''D''", which is the set of Dedekind cuts of decimal fractions. Ordinarily this definition leads to the real numbers, but for a decimal fraction ''d'' he allows both the cut (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;) and the "principal cut" (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;]. The result is that the real numbers are "living uneasily together with" the decimal fractions. Again 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1. There are no positive infinitesimals in cut ''D'', but there is "a sort of negative infinitesimal," 0<sup>−</sup>, which has no decimal expansion. He concludes that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;0<sup>−</sup>, while the equation "0.999… + ''x'' = 1"<br />
has no solution.<ref>Richman pp.398–400. Rudin (p.23) assigns this alternative construction (but over the rationals) as the last exercise of Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
===''p''-adic numbers===<br />
{{main|p-adic number}}<br />
<br />
When asked about 0.999…, novices often believe there should be a "final 9," believing 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… to be a positive number which they write as "0.000…1". Whether or not that makes sense, the intuitive goal is clear: adding a 1 to the last 9 in 0.999… would carry all the 9s into 0s and leave a 1 in the ones place. Among other reasons, this idea fails because there is no "last 9" in 0.999….<ref>Gardiner p.98; Gowers p.60</ref> However, there is a system that contains an infinite string of 9s including a last 9.<br />
<br />
[[Image:4adic 333.svg|right|thumb|200px|The 4-adic integers (black points), including the sequence (3, 33, 333, …) converging to −1. The 10-adic analogue is …999 = −1.]]<br />
<br />
The [[p-adic number|''p''-adic number]]s are an alternative number system of interest in [[number theory]]. Like the real numbers, the ''p''-adic numbers can be built from the rational numbers via [[Cauchy sequence]]s; the construction uses a different metric in which 0 is closer to ''p'', and much closer to ''p<sup>n</sup>'', than it is to 1. The ''p''-adic numbers form a [[field (algebra)|field]] for prime ''p'' and a [[ring (mathematics)|ring]] for other ''p'', including 10. So arithmetic can be performed in the ''p''-adics, and there are no infinitesimals.<br />
<br />
In the 10-adic numbers, the analogues of decimal expansions run to the left. The 10-adic expansion …999 does have a last 9, and it does not have a first 9. One can add 1 to the ones place, and it leaves behind only 0s after carrying through: 1&nbsp;+&nbsp;…999&nbsp;=&nbsp;…000&nbsp;=&nbsp;0, and so …999&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1.<ref name="Fjelstad11">Fjelstad p.11</ref> Another derivation uses a geometric series. The infinite series implied by "…999" does not converge in the real numbers, but it converges in the 10-adics, and so one can re-use the familiar formula:<br />
:<math>\ldots999 = 9 + 9(10) + 9(10)^2 + 9(10)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9}{1-10} = -1.</math><ref>Fjelstad pp.14–15</ref><br />
<br />
(Compare with the series [[#Infinite series and sequences|above]].) A third derivation was invented by a seventh-grader who was doubtful over her teacher's limiting argument that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 but was inspired to take the multiply-by-10 proof [[#Digit manipulation|above]] in the opposite direction: if ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;…999 then 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp; …990, so 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;9, hence ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1 again.<ref name="Fjelstad11" /><br />
<br />
As a final extension, since {{nowrap begin}}0.999… = 1{{nowrap end}} (in the reals) and {{nowrap begin}}…999 = −1{{nowrap end}} (in the 10-adics), then by "blind faith and unabashed juggling of symbols"<ref>DeSua p.901</ref> one may add the two equations and arrive at {{nowrap begin}}…999.999… = 0.{{nowrap end}} This equation does not make sense either as a 10-adic expansion or an ordinary decimal expansion, but it turns out to be meaningful and true if one develops a theory of "double-decimals" with eventually repeating left ends to represent a familiar system: the real numbers.<ref>DeSua pp.902–903</ref><br />
<br />
==Related questions==<br />
<!--[[Intuitionism]] should be worked in somewhere and explained, not necessarily here.--><br />
* [[Zeno's paradoxes]], particularly the paradox of the runner, are reminiscent of the apparent paradox that 0.999… and 1 are equal. The runner paradox can be mathematically modelled and then, like 0.999…, resolved using a geometric series. However, it is not clear if this mathematical treatment addresses the underlying metaphysical issues Zeno was exploring.<ref>Wallace p.51, Maor p.17</ref><br />
* [[Division by zero]] occurs in some popular discussions of 0.999…, and it also stirs up contention. While most authors choose to define 0.999…, almost all modern treatments leave division by zero undefined, as it can be given no meaning in the standard real numbers. However, division by zero is defined in some other systems, such as [[complex analysis]], where the [[extended complex plane]], i.e. the [[Riemann sphere]], has a "[[point at infinity]]". Here, it makes sense to define <sup>1</sup>/<sub>0</sub> to be infinity;<ref>See, for example, J.B. Conway's treatment of Möbius transformations, pp.47–57</ref> and, in fact, the results are profound and applicable to many problems in engineering and physics. Some prominent mathematicians argued for such a definition long before either number system was developed.<ref>Maor p.54</ref><br />
* [[Negative zero]] is another redundant feature of many ways of writing numbers. In number systems, such as the real numbers, where "0" denotes the additive identity and is neither positive nor negative, the usual interpretation of "−0" is that it should denote the additive inverse of 0, which forces −0&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.<ref>Munkres p.34, Exercise 1(c)</ref> Nonetheless, some scientific applications use separate positive and negative zeroes, as do some of the most common computer number systems (for example integers stored in the [[sign and magnitude]] or [[one's complement]] formats, or floating point numbers as specified by the [[IEEE floating-point standard]]).<ref>{{cite book |author=Kroemer, Herbert; Kittel, Charles |title=Thermal Physics |edition=2e |publisher=W. H. Freeman |year=1980 |isbn=0-7167-1088-9 |page=462}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/csspec/html/vclrfcsharpspec_4_1_6.asp |title=Floating point types |work=[[Microsoft Developer Network|MSDN]] C# Language Specification |accessdate=2006-08-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
{{Col-begin}}<br />
{{Col-1-of-3}}<br />
* [[Decimal representation]]<br />
* [[Infinity]]<br />
{{Col-2-of-3}}<br />
* [[Limit (mathematics)]]<br />
* [[Informal mathematics|Naive mathematics]]<br />
* [[Non-standard analysis]]<br />
{{Col-3-of-3}}<br />
* [[Real analysis]]<br />
* [[Series (mathematics)]]<br />
<br />
{{col-end}}<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{refbegin|colwidth=30em}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke |year=1996 |title=Chaos: An introduction to dynamical systems |chapter=4.1 Cantor Sets |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94677-2}}<br />
*:This introductory textbook on dynamical systems is aimed at undergraduate and beginning graduate students. (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Apostol |first=Tom M. |year=1974 |title=Mathematical analysis |edition=2e |publisher=Addison-Wesley |isbn=0-201-00288-4}}<br />
*:A transition from calculus to advanced analysis, ''Mathematical analysis'' is intended to be "honest, rigorous, up to date, and, at the same time, not too pedantic." (pref.) Apostol's development of the real numbers uses the least upper bound axiom and introduces infinite decimals two pages later. (pp.9–11)<br />
*{{cite book |author=Bartle, R.G. and D.R. Sherbert |year=1982 |title=Introduction to real analysis |publisher=Wiley |isbn=0-471-05944-7}}<br />
*:This text aims to be "an accessible, reasonably paced textbook that deals with the fundamental concepts and techniques of real analysis." Its development of the real numbers relies on the supremum axiom. (pp.vii-viii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Beals |first=Richard |title=Analysis |year=2004 |publisher=Cambridge UP |isbn=0-521-60047-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=[[Elwyn Berlekamp|Berlekamp, E.R.]]; [[John Horton Conway|J.H. Conway]]; and [[Richard K. Guy|R.K. Guy]] |year=1982 |title=[[Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays]] |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=0-12-091101-9}}<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Berz |first=Martin |title=Automatic differentiation as nonarchimedean analysis |year=1992 |booktitle=Computer Arithmetic and Enclosure Methods |publisher=Elsevier |pages=439–450 |url=http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/berz92automatic.html}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Bunch |first=Bryan H. |title=Mathematical fallacies and paradoxes |year=1982 |publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold |isbn=0-442-24905-5}}<br />
*:This book presents an analysis of paradoxes and fallacies as a tool for exploring its central topic, "the rather tenuous relationship between mathematical reality and physical reality". It assumes first-year high-school algebra; further mathematics is developed in the book, including geometric series in Chapter 2. Although 0.999… is not one of the paradoxes to be fully treated, it is briefly mentioned during a development of Cantor's diagonal method. (pp.ix-xi, 119)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Burrell |first=Brian |title=Merriam-Webster's Guide to Everyday Math: A Home and Business Reference |year=1998 |publisher=Merriam-Webster |isbn=0-87779-621-1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Conway |first=John B. |authorlink=John B. Conway |title=Functions of one complex variable I |edition=2e |publisher=Springer-Verlag |origyear=1973 |year=1978 |isbn=0-387-90328-3}}<br />
*:This text assumes "a stiff course in basic calculus" as a prerequisite; its stated principles are to present complex analysis as "An Introduction to Mathematics" and to state the material clearly and precisely. (p.vii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Davies |first=Charles |year=1846 |title=The University Arithmetic: Embracing the Science of Numbers, and Their Numerous Applications |publisher=A.S. Barnes |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02026287&pg=PA175}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=DeSua |first=Frank C. |title=A system isomorphic to the reals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=67 |number=9 |month=November |year=1960 |pages=900–903 |doi=10.2307/2309468 |issue=9}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Dubinsky, Ed, Kirk Weller, Michael McDonald, and Anne Brown |title=Some historical issues and paradoxes regarding the concept of infinity: an APOS analysis: part 2 |journal=Educational Studies in Mathematics |year=2005 |volume=60 |pages=253–266 |doi=10.1007/s10649-005-0473-0}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Edwards, Barbara and Michael Ward |year=2004 |month=May |title=Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=111 |number=5 |pages=411–425 |url=http://www.wou.edu/~wardm/FromMonthlyMay2004.pdf |doi=10.2307/4145268|format=PDF |issue=5}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Enderton |first=Herbert B. |year=1977 |title=Elements of set theory |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=0-12-238440-7}}<br />
*:An introductory undergraduate textbook in set theory that "presupposes no specific background". It is written to accommodate a course focusing on axiomatic set theory or on the construction of number systems; the axiomatic material is marked such that it may be de-emphasized. (pp.xi-xii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Euler |first=Leonhard |authorlink=Leonhard Euler |origyear=1770 |year=1822 |edition=3rd English |title=Elements of Algebra |editor=John Hewlett and Francis Horner, English translators. |publisher=Orme Longman |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=X8yv0sj4_1YC&pg=PA170 |isbn=0387960147}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Fjelstad |first=Paul |title=The repeating integer paradox |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=26 |number=1 |month=January |year=1995 |pages=11–15 |doi=10.2307/2687285 |issue=1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gardiner |first=Anthony |title=Understanding Infinity: The Mathematics of Infinite Processes |origyear=1982 |year=2003 |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-42538-X}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gowers |first=Timothy|authorlink= William Timothy Gowers|title=Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction |year=2002 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-285361-9}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Grattan-Guinness |first=Ivor |year=1970 |title=The development of the foundations of mathematical analysis from Euler to Riemann |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=0-262-07034-0}}<br />
*{{cite book | last=Griffiths | first=H.B. | coauthors=P.J. Hilton | title=A Comprehensive Textbook of Classical Mathematics: A Contemporary Interpretation | year=1970 | publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold | location=London | isbn=0-442-02863-6. {{LCC|QA37.2|G75}}}}<br />
*:This book grew out of a course for [[Birmingham]]-area [[grammar school]] mathematics teachers. The course was intended to convey a university-level perspective on [[mathematics education|school mathematics]], and the book is aimed at students "who have reached roughly the level of completing one year of specialist mathematical study at a university". The real numbers are constructed in Chapter 24, "perhaps the most difficult chapter in the entire book", although the authors ascribe much of the difficulty to their use of [[ideal theory]], which is not reproduced here. (pp.vii, xiv)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Kempner |first=A.J. |title=Anormal Systems of Numeration |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=43 |number=10 |month=December |year=1936 |pages=610–617 |doi=10.2307/2300532 |issue=10 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Komornik, Vilmos; and Paola Loreti |title=Unique Developments in Non-Integer Bases |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=105 |number=7 |year=1998 |pages=636–639 |doi=10.2307/2589246 |issue=7 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=A Theorem on Repeating Decimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=74 |number=6 |year=1967 |pages=669–673 |doi=10.2307/2314251 |issue=6 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=Repeating Decimals |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=15 |number=4 |month=September |year=1984 |pages=299–308 |doi=10.2307/2686394 |issue=4 }}<br />
*{{cite web | url=http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0605182 |title=Midy's Theorem for Periodic Decimals |last=Lewittes |first=Joseph |work=New York Number Theory Workshop on Combinatorial and Additive Number Theory |year=2006 |publisher=[[arXiv]]}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Lightstone |first=A.H. |title=Infinitesimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |year=1972 |volume=79 |number=3 |month=March |pages=242–251 |doi=10.2307/2316619 |issue=3 }}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mankiewicz |first=Richard |year=2000 |title=The story of mathematics|publisher=Cassell |isbn=0-304-35473-2}}<br />
*:Mankiewicz seeks to represent "the history of mathematics in an accessible style" by combining visual and qualitative aspects of mathematics, mathematicians' writings, and historical sketches. (p.8)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Maor |first=Eli |title=To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite |year=1987 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=3-7643-3325-1}}<br />
*:A topical rather than chronological review of infinity, this book is "intended for the general reader" but "told from the point of view of a mathematician". On the dilemma of rigor versus readable language, Maor comments, "I hope I have succeeded in properly addressing this problem." (pp.x-xiii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mazur |first=Joseph |title=Euclid in the Rainforest: Discovering Universal Truths in Logic and Math |year=2005 |publisher=Pearson: Pi Press |isbn=0-13-147994-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Munkres |first=James R. |title=Topology |year=2000 |origyear=1975 |edition=2e |publisher=Prentice-Hall |isbn=0-13-181629-2}}<br />
*:Intended as an introduction "at the senior or first-year graduate level" with no formal prerequisites: "I do not even assume the reader knows much set theory." (p.xi) Munkres' treatment of the reals is axiomatic; he claims of bare-hands constructions, "This way of approaching the subject takes a good deal of time and effort and is of greater logical than mathematical interest." (p.30)<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Núñez |first=Rafael |title=Do Real Numbers Really Move? Language, Thought, and Gesture: The Embodied Cognitive Foundations of Mathematics |year=2006 |booktitle=18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics |publisher=Springer |pages=160–181 |url=http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/publications.html | id=ISBN 978-0-387-25717-4}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pedrick |first=George |title=A First Course in Analysis |year=1994 |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94108-8}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Petkovšek |first=Marko |title=Ambiguous Numbers are Dense |journal=[[American Mathematical Monthly]] |volume=97 |number=5 |month=May |year=1990 |pages=408–411 |doi=10.2307/2324393 |issue=5 }}<br />
*{{cite conference |author=Pinto, Márcia and David Tall |title=Following students' development in a traditional university analysis course |booktitle=PME25 |pages=v4: 57–64 |year=2001 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001j-pme25-pinto-tall.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Protter, M.H. and [[Charles B. Morrey, Jr.|C.B. Morrey]] |year=1991 |edition=2e |title=A first course in real analysis |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-97437-7}}<br />
*:This book aims to "present a theoretical foundation of analysis that is suitable for students who have completed a standard course in calculus." (p.vii) At the end of Chapter 2, the authors assume as an axiom for the real numbers that bounded, nodecreasing sequences converge, later proving the nested intervals theorem and the least upper bound property. (pp.56–64) Decimal expansions appear in Appendix 3, "Expansions of real numbers in any base". (pp.503–507)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pugh |first=Charles Chapman |title=Real mathematical analysis |year=2001 |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=0-387-95297-7}}<br />
*:While assuming familiarity with the rational numbers, Pugh introduces [[Dedekind cut]]s as soon as possible, saying of the axiomatic treatment, "This is something of a fraud, considering that the entire structure of analysis is built on the real number system." (p.10) After proving the least upper bound property and some allied facts, cuts are not used in the rest of the book.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Renteln, Paul and Allan Dundes |year=2005 |month=January |title=Foolproof: A Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humor |journal=[[Notices of the AMS]] |volume=52 |number=1 |pages=24–34 |url=http://www.ams.org/notices/200501/fea-dundes.pdf|doi=|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |first=Fred |last=Richman |year=1999 |month=December |title=Is 0.999… = 1? |journal=[[Mathematics Magazine]] |volume=72 |issue=5 |pages=396–400 }} Free HTML preprint: {{cite web |url=http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm |first=Fred|last=Richman|title=Is 0.999… = 1? |date=1999-06-08 |accessdate=2006-08-23}} Note: the journal article contains material and wording not found in the preprint.<br />
*{{cite book |last=Robinson |first=Abraham |authorlink=Abraham Robinson |title=Non-standard analysis |year=1996 |edition=Revised |publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=0-691-04490-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rosenlicht |first=Maxwell |year=1985 |title=Introduction to Analysis |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-65038-3}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rudin |first=Walter |authorlink=Walter Rudin |title=Principles of mathematical analysis |edition=3e |year=1976 |origyear=1953 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=0-07-054235-X}}<br />
*:A textbook for an advanced undergraduate course. "Experience has convinced me that it is pedagogically unsound (though logically correct) to start off with the construction of the real numbers from the rational ones. At the beginning, most students simply fail to appreciate the need for doing this. Accordingly, the real number system is introduced as an ordered field with the least-upper-bound property, and a few interesting applications of this property are quickly made. However, Dedekind's construction is not omitted. It is now in an Appendix to Chapter 1, where it may be studied and enjoyed whenever the time is ripe." (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Shrader-Frechette |first=Maurice |title=Complementary Rational Numbers |journal=Mathematics Magazine |volume=51 |number=2 |month=March |year=1978 |pages=90–98 }}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Smith, Charles and Charles Harrington |year=1895 |title=Arithmetic for Schools |publisher=Macmillan |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02029670&pg=PA115}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Sohrab |first=Houshang |title=Basic Real Analysis |year=2003 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=0-8176-4211-0}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=Ian |title=The Foundations of Mathematics |year=1977 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-853165-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=James |title=Calculus: Early transcendentals |edition=4e |year=1999 |publisher=Brooks/Cole |isbn=0-534-36298-2}}<br />
*:This book aims to "assist students in discovering calculus" and "to foster conceptual understanding". (p.v) It omits proofs of the foundations of calculus.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=D.O. Tall and R.L.E. Schwarzenberger |title=Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits |journal=Mathematics Teaching |year=1978 |volume=82 |pages=44–49 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1978c-with-rolph.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |authorlink=David O. Tall |title=Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics |journal=Mathematical Education for Teaching |year=1976/7 |volume=2 |number=4 |pages=2–18 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1976a-confl-catastrophy.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |title=Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology |journal=Mathematics Education Research Journal |year=2000 |volume=12 |number=3 |pages=210–230 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001b-merj-amt.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book|last=von Mangoldt|first=Dr. Hans|authorlink =Hans Carl Friedrich von Mangoldt| title=Einführung in die höhere Mathematik|edition=1st|year=1911|publisher=Verlag von S. Hirzel| location=Leipzig|language=German|chapter=Reihenzahlen}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Wallace |first=David Foster|authorlink =David Foster Wallace |title=Everything and more: a compact history of infinity |year=2003 |publisher=Norton |isbn=0-393-00338-8}}<br />
{{refend}}<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
{{Spoken Wikipedia|0.999....ogg|2006-10-19}}<br />
{{commons|0.999...}}<br />
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/999999.shtml .999999… = 1?] from [[cut-the-knot]]<br />
* [http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html Why does 0.9999… = 1 ?]<br />
* [http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99167.htm Ask A Scientist: Repeating Decimals]<br />
* [http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.00/joan2.html Proof of the equality based on arithmetic]<br />
* [http://descmath.com/diag/nines.html Repeating Nines]<br />
* [http://qntm.org/pointnine Point nine recurring equals one]<br />
* [http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/themes/limits-infinity.html David Tall's research on mathematics cognition]<br />
* [http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html What is so wrong with thinking of real numbers as infinite decimals?]<br />
* [http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/0.999....html Theorem 0.999...] on [[Metamath]]<br />
* [http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ Hackenstrings, and the 0.999... ?= 1 FAQ]<br />
* [http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-friendly-chat-about-whether-0-999-1/ A Friendly Chat About Whether 0.999… = 1]<br />
*Katz, K.; [[Mikhail Katz|Katz, M.]] (2010) When is .999... less than 1? [[The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast]], Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3--30. http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/vol7no1/<br />
<br />
{{featured article}}<br />
<br />
<!-- [[en:0.999...]] --><br />
<br />
[[Category:One]]<br />
[[Category:Mathematics paradoxes]]<br />
[[Category:Real analysis]]<br />
[[Category:Real numbers]]<br />
[[Category:Numeration]]<br />
[[Category:Articles containing proofs]]<br />
<br />
{{Link FA|hu}}<br />
{{Link FA|ja}}<br />
{{Link FA|zh}}<br />
<br />
[[ar:0.999...]]<br />
[[be:0,(9)]]<br />
[[be-x-old:0,(9)]]<br />
[[bg:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ca:0,999...]]<br />
[[da:0,999...]]<br />
[[de:Eins#Periodischer Dezimalbruch]]<br />
[[el:0,999...]]<br />
[[es:0,9 periódico]]<br />
[[eo:0,999...]]<br />
[[fa:۰٫۹۹۹…]]<br />
[[fr:Développement décimal de l'unité]]<br />
[[ko:0.999…]]<br />
[[id:0,999...]]<br />
[[it:0,999...]]<br />
[[he:0.999...]]<br />
[[ka:0.999...]]<br />
[[lv:0,999...]]<br />
[[hu:0,999…]]<br />
[[ml:0.999...]]<br />
[[ms:0.999...]]<br />
[[nl:Repeterende breuk#Repeterende negens]]<br />
[[ja:0.999...]]<br />
[[no:0,999...]]<br />
[[nov:0.999...]]<br />
[[uz:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pl:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pt:0,999...]]<br />
[[ro:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ru:0,(9)]]<br />
[[sl:0,999...]]<br />
[[fi:0,999...]]<br />
[[sv:0,999...]]<br />
[[ta:0.999...]]<br />
[[th:0.999...]]<br />
[[tr:0,999...]]<br />
[[vi:0,999...]]<br />
[[yo:0.999...]]<br />
[[zh:0.999…]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=0,999%E2%80%A6&diff=1274355100,999…2010-02-02T20:52:35Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Generalizations */ correction; ordinary factoradic is a system that can only represent integers</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- NOTE: The content of this article is well-established. If you have an argument against one or more of the proofs listed here, please read the FAQ on [[Talk:0.999...]], or discuss it on [[Talk:0.999.../Arguments]]. However, please understand that the earlier, more naive proofs are not as rigorous as the later ones as they intend to appeal to intuition, and as such may require further justification to be complete. Thank you. --><br />
[[Image:999 Perspective.png|300px|right]]<br />
<br />
In [[mathematics]], the [[repeating decimal]] '''0.999…''' which may also be written as <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em"> 0.\bar{9}</math>, <math style="position:relative;top:-.35em">0.\dot{9}</math> or <math style="position:relative;top:-.2em"> 0.(9)\,\!</math>, denotes a [[real number]] equal to [[1 (number)|the number '''one''']]. In other words, the notations ''0.999…'' and ''1'' represent the same number within the real number system. [[mathematical proof|Proofs]] of this [[equality (mathematics)|equality]] have been formulated with varying degrees of [[mathematical rigour]], taking into account preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience.<br />
<br />
That certain real numbers can be represented by more than one digit string is not limited to the decimal system. The same phenomenon occurs in all [[integer]] [[radix|base]]s, and mathematicians have also quantified the ways of writing 1 in [[Non-integer representation|non-integer bases]]. Nor is this phenomenon unique to 1: every non-zero, terminating decimal has a twin with trailing 9s, such as 28.3287 and 28.3286999…. For simplicity, the terminating decimal is almost always the preferred representation, contributing to a misconception that it is the ''only'' representation. Even more generally, any [[positional numeral system]] contains infinitely many numbers with multiple representations. These various identities have been applied to better understand patterns in the decimal expansions of [[fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s and the structure of a simple [[fractal]], the [[Cantor set]]. They also occur in a classic investigation of the infinitude of the entire set of real numbers.<br />
<br />
The ''0.999...=1'' [[Equality (mathematics)|equality]] has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. In the last few decades, researchers of [[mathematics education]] have studied the reception of this equality among students, many of whom initially question or reject this equality. Many are persuaded by an [[Argument_from_authority|appeal to authority]] from textbooks and teachers, or by arithmetic reasoning as below to accept that the two are equal. However, some are often uneasy enough that they seek further justification. The students' reasoning for denying or affirming the equality is typically based on one of a few common errors triggered by [[counterintuitive]] behavior of the real numbers; for example that each real number has a unique [[decimal expansion]], that nonzero [[infinitesimal]] real numbers should exist, or that the expansion of 0.999… eventually terminates. <br />
<br />
Number systems can be constructed bearing out some of these intuitions, and in some of which the equality is false. Though these number systems are different to the standard [[real number]] system used in elementary, and most higher, mathematics. Indeed, some settings contain numbers that are "just shy" of 1; these are generally unrelated to 0.999…, but they are of considerable interest in [[mathematical analysis]].<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
0.999… is a number written in the [[decimal]] [[numeral system]], and some of the simplest proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the convenient [[arithmetic]] properties of this system. Most of decimal arithmetic—[[addition]], [[subtraction]], [[multiplication]], [[division (mathematics)|division]], and [[inequality|comparison]]—uses manipulations at the digit level that are much the same as those for [[integer]]s. As with integers, any two ''finite'' decimals with different digits mean different numbers (ignoring trailing zeros). In particular, any number of the form 0.99…9, where the 9s eventually stop, is strictly less than 1.<br />
<br />
Misinterpreting the meaning of the use of the "…" ([[ellipsis]]) in 0.999… accounts for some of the misunderstanding about its equality to 1. The use here is different from the usage in language or in 0.99…9, in which the ellipsis specifies that some ''finite'' portion is left unstated or otherwise omitted. When used to specify a [[recurring decimal]], "…" means that some ''infinite'' portion is left unstated, which can only be interpreted as a number by using the mathematical concept of [[limit of a sequence|limits]]. As a result, in conventional mathematical usage, the value assigned to the notation "0.999…" is defined to be the [[real number]] which is the [[limit of a sequence|limit]] of the [[convergent sequence]] (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, …).<br />
<br />
Unlike the case with integers and finite decimals, other notations can also express a single number in multiple ways. For example, using [[Fraction (mathematics)|fraction]]s, {{frac|1|3}} = {{frac|2|6}}. Infinite decimals, however, can express the same number in at most two different ways. If there are two ways, then one of them must end with an infinite series of nines, and the other must terminate (that is, consist of a recurring series of zeros from a certain point on).<br />
<br />
There are many proofs that 0.999… = 1, of varying degrees of mathematical rigour. A short sketch of one rigorous proof can be simply stated as follows. Consider that two [[real number]]s are identical [[if and only if]] their difference is equal to zero. Most people would agree that the difference between 0.999… and 1, if it exists at all, must be very small. By considering the convergence of the sequence above, we can show that the magnitude of this difference must be smaller than any positive quantity, and it can be shown (see [[Archimedean property]] for details) that the only real number with this property is 0. Since the difference is 0 it follows that the numbers 1 and 0.999… are identical. The same argument also explains why 0.333… = {{frac|1|3}}, 0.111… = {{frac|1|9}}, etc.<br />
<br />
==Proofs==<br />
===Algebraic===<br />
====Fractions and long division====<br />
<br />
One reason that infinite decimals are a necessary extension of finite decimals is to represent fractions. Using [[long division]], a simple division of integers like {{frac|1|3}} becomes a recurring decimal, 0.333…, in which the digits repeat without end. This decimal yields a quick proof for 0.999… = 1. Multiplication of 3 times 3 produces 9 in each digit, so 3 × 0.333… equals 0.999…. And 3 × {{frac|1|3}} equals 1, so 0.999… = 1.<ref name="CME">cf. with the binary version of the same argument in [[Silvanus P. Thompson]], ''Calculus made easy'', St. Martin's Press, New York, 1998. ISBN 0-312-18548-0.</ref><br />
<br />
Another form of this proof multiplies {{frac|1|9}} = 0.111… by 9.<br />
<br />
:{| style="wikitable"<br />
|<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.333\dots &{} = \frac{1}{3} \\<br />
3 \times 0.333\dots &{} = 3 \times \frac{1}{3} = \frac{3 \times 1}{3} \\<br />
0.999\dots &{} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
|width="25px"|<br />
|width="25px" style="border-left:1px solid silver;"|<br />
|<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
0.111\dots & {} = \frac{1}{9} \\<br />
9 \times 0.111\dots & {} = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} = \frac{9 \times 1}{9} \\<br />
0.999\dots & {} = 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
|}<br />
<br />
A more compact version of the same proof is given by the following equations:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
1 = \frac{9}{9} = 9 \times \frac{1}{9} = 9 \times 0.111\dots = 0.999\dots<br />
</math><br />
<br />
Since both equations are valid, 0.999… must equal 1 (by the [[transitive property]]). Similarly, {{frac|3|3}} = 1, and {{frac|3|3}} = 0.999…. So, 0.999… must equal 1.<br />
<br />
====Digit manipulation====<br />
<br />
Another kind of proof more easily adapts to other repeating decimals. When a number in decimal notation is multiplied by 10, the digits do not change but the decimal separator moves one place to the right. Thus 10 × 0.999… equals 9.999…, which is 9 greater than the original number.<br />
<br />
To see this, consider that subtracting 0.999… from 9.999… can proceed digit by digit; in each of the digits after the decimal separator the result is 9 − 9, which is 0. But trailing zeros do not change a number, so the difference is exactly 9. The final step uses algebra:<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
x &= 0.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x &= 9.999\ldots \\<br />
10 x - x &= 9.999\ldots - 0.999\ldots \\<br />
9 x &= 9 \\<br />
x &= 1 \\<br />
0.999\ldots &= 1<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The validity of the digit manipulations in the above two proofs does not have to be taken on faith or as an axiom; it follows from the fundamental relationship between decimals and the numbers they represent. This relationship, which can be developed in several equivalent manners, already establishes that the decimals 0.999… and 1.000… both represent the same number.<br />
<br />
===Analytic===<br />
Since the question of 0.999… does not affect the formal development of mathematics, it can be postponed until one proves the standard theorems of [[real analysis]]. One requirement is to characterize real numbers that can be written in decimal notation, consisting of an optional sign, a finite sequence of any number of digits forming an integer part, a decimal separator, and a sequence of digits forming a fractional part. For the purpose of discussing 0.999…, the integer part can be summarized as ''b''<sub>0</sub> and one can neglect negatives, so a decimal expansion has the form<br />
:<math>b_0.b_1b_2b_3b_4b_5\dots</math><br />
<br />
It is vital that the fraction part, unlike the integer part, is not limited to a finite number of digits. This is a [[positional notation]], so for example the 5 in 500 contributes ten times as much as the 5 in 50, and the 5 in 0.05 contributes one tenth as much as the 5 in 0.5.<br />
<br />
====Infinite series and sequences====<br />
{{further|[[Decimal representation]]}}<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most common development of decimal expansions is to define them as sums of [[infinite series]]. In general:<br />
:<math>b_0 . b_1 b_2 b_3 b_4 \ldots = b_0 + b_1\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right) + b_2\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + b_3\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + b_4\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^4 + \cdots .</math><br />
<br />
For 0.999… one can apply the [[convergent series|convergence]] theorem concerning [[geometric series]]:<ref>Rudin p.61, Theorem 3.26; J. Stewart p.706</ref><br />
:If <math>|r| < 1 \,\!</math> then <math>ar+ar^2+ar^3+\cdots = \frac{ar}{1-r}.</math><br />
<br />
Since 0.999… is such a sum with a common ratio <math>r=\textstyle\frac{1}{10}</math>, the theorem makes short work of the question:<br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = 9\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right) + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^2 + 9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9\left({\tfrac{1}{10}}\right)}{1-{\tfrac{1}{10}}} = 1.\,</math><br />
This proof (actually, that 10 equals 9.999…) appears as early as 1770 in [[Leonhard Euler]]'s ''[[Elements of Algebra]]''.<ref>Euler p.170</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:base4 333.svg|left|thumb|200px|Limits: The unit interval, including the '''base-4''' decimal sequence (.3, .33, .333, …) converging to 1.]]<br />
The sum of a geometric series is itself a result even older than Euler. A typical 18th-century derivation used a term-by-term manipulation similar to the [[#Algebra|algebra proof]] given above, and as late as 1811, Bonnycastle's textbook ''An Introduction to Algebra'' uses such an argument for geometric series to justify the same maneuver on 0.999….<ref>Grattan-Guinness p.69; Bonnycastle p.177</ref> A 19th-century reaction against such liberal summation methods resulted in the definition that still dominates today: the sum of a series is ''defined'' to be the limit of the sequence of its partial sums. A corresponding proof of the theorem explicitly computes that sequence; it can be found in any proof-based introduction to calculus or analysis.<ref>For example, J. Stewart p.706, Rudin p.61, Protter and Morrey p.213, Pugh p.180, J.B. Conway p.31</ref><br />
<br />
A [[sequence]] (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …) has a [[limit of a sequence|limit]] ''x'' if the distance |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>| becomes arbitrarily small as ''n'' increases. The statement that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 can itself be interpreted and proven as a limit:<ref>The limit follows, for example, from Rudin p. 57, Theorem 3.20e. For a more direct approach, see also Finney, Weir, Giordano (2001) ''Thomas' Calculus: Early Transcendentals'' 10ed, Addison-Wesley, New York. Section 8.1, example 2(a), example 6(b).</ref><br />
:<math>0.999\ldots = \lim_{n\to\infty}0.\underbrace{ 99\ldots9 }_{n} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k = 1}^n\frac{9}{10^k} = \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{10^n}\right) = 1-\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 1.\,</math><br />
<br />
The last step&nbsp;— that <math>\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{10^n} = 0</math>&nbsp;— is often justified by the axiom that the real numbers have the [[Archimedean property]]. This limit-based attitude towards 0.999… is often put in more evocative but less precise terms. For example, the 1846 textbook ''The University Arithmetic'' explains, ".999 +, continued to infinity = 1, because every annexation of a 9 brings the value closer to 1"; the 1895 ''Arithmetic for Schools'' says, "…when a large number of 9s is taken, the difference between 1 and .99999… becomes inconceivably small".<ref>Davies p.175; Smith and Harrington p.115</ref> Such [[heuristic]]s are often interpreted by students as implying that 0.999… itself is less than 1.<br />
<br />
====Nested intervals and least upper bounds====<br />
{{further|[[Nested intervals]]}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:999 Intervals C.svg|right|thumb|250px|Nested intervals: in base 3, 1 = 1.000… = 0.222…]]<br />
The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it.<br />
<br />
If a real number ''x'' is known to lie in the [[closed interval]] [0, 10] (i.e., it is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 10), one can imagine dividing that interval into ten pieces that overlap only at their endpoints: [0, 1], [1, 2], [2, 3], and so on up to [9, 10]. The number ''x'' must belong to one of these; if it belongs to [2, 3] then one records the digit "2" and subdivides that interval into [2, 2.1], [2.1, 2.2], …, [2.8, 2.9], [2.9, 3]. Continuing this process yields an infinite sequence of [[nested intervals]], labeled by an infinite sequence of digits ''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>2</sub>, ''b''<sub>3</sub>, …, and one writes<br />
:''x'' = ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>…<br />
<br />
In this formalism, the identities 1 = 0.999… and 1 = 1.000… reflect, respectively, the fact that 1 lies in both [0, 1] and [1, 2], so one can choose either subinterval when finding its digits. To ensure that this notation does not abuse the "=" sign, one needs a way to reconstruct a unique real number for each decimal. This can be done with limits, but other constructions continue with the ordering theme.<ref>Beals p.22; I. Stewart p.34</ref><br />
<br />
One straightforward choice is the [[nested intervals theorem]], which guarantees that given a sequence of nested, closed intervals whose lengths become arbitrarily small, the intervals contain exactly one real number in their [[intersection (set theory)|intersection]]. So ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is defined to be the unique number contained within all the intervals [''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub> + 1], [''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub> + 0.1], and so on. 0.999… is then the unique real number that lies in all of the intervals [0, 1], [0.9, 1], [0.99, 1], and [0.99…9, 1] for every finite string of 9s. Since 1 is an element of each of these intervals, 0.999… = 1.<ref>Bartle and Sherbert pp.60–62; Pedrick p.29; Sohrab p.46</ref><br />
<br />
The Nested Intervals Theorem is usually founded upon a more fundamental characteristic of the real numbers: the existence of [[least upper bound]]s or ''suprema''. To directly exploit these objects, one may define ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… to be the least upper bound of the set of approximants {''b''<sub>0</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>, …}.<ref>Apostol pp.9, 11–12; Beals p.22; Rosenlicht p.27</ref> One can then show that this definition (or the nested intervals definition) is consistent with the subdivision procedure, implying 0.999… = 1 again. Tom Apostol concludes,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The fact that a real number might have two different decimal representations is merely a reflection of the fact that two different sets of real numbers can have the same supremum.<ref>Apostol p.12</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
===Based on the construction of the real numbers===<br />
{{further|[[Construction of the real numbers]]}}<br />
<br />
Some approaches explicitly define real numbers to be certain [[construction of the real numbers|structures built upon the rational numbers]], using [[axiomatic set theory]]. The [[natural number]]s&nbsp;— 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on&nbsp;— begin with 0 and continue upwards, so that every number has a successor. One can extend the natural numbers with their negatives to give all the [[integer]]s, and to further extend to ratios, giving the [[rational number]]s. These number systems are accompanied by the arithmetic of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. More subtly, they include [[order theory|ordering]], so that one number can be compared to another and found to be less than, greater than, or equal to another number.<br />
<br />
The step from rationals to reals is a major extension. There are at least two popular ways to achieve this step, both published in 1872: [[Dedekind cut]]s and [[Cauchy sequence]]s. Proofs that 0.999… = 1 which directly use these constructions are not found in textbooks on real analysis, where the modern trend for the last few decades has been to use an axiomatic analysis. Even when a construction is offered, it is usually applied towards proving the axioms of the real numbers, which then support the above proofs. However, several authors express the idea that starting with a construction is more logically appropriate, and the resulting proofs are more self-contained.<ref>The historical synthesis is claimed by Griffiths and Hilton (p.xiv) in 1970 and again by Pugh (p.10) in 2001; both actually prefer Dedekind cuts to axioms. For the use of cuts in textbooks, see Pugh p.17 or Rudin p.17. For viewpoints on logic, Pugh p.10, Rudin p.ix, or Munkres p.30</ref><br />
<br />
====Dedekind cuts====<br />
{{further|[[Dedekind cut]]}}<br />
<br />
In the [[Dedekind cut]] approach, each real number ''x'' is defined as the [[infinite set]] of all rational numbers that are less than ''x''.<ref>Enderton (p.113) qualifies this description: "The idea behind Dedekind cuts is that a real number ''x'' can be named by giving an infinite set of rationals, namely all the rationals less than ''x''. We will in effect define ''x'' to be the set of rationals smaller than ''x''. To avoid circularity in the definition, we must be able to characterize the sets of rationals obtainable in this way…"</ref> In particular, the real number 1 is the set of all rational numbers that are less than 1.<ref>Rudin pp.17–20, Richman p.399, or Enderton p.119. To be precise, Rudin, Richman, and Enderton call this cut 1*, 1<sup>−</sup>, and 1<sub>''R''</sub>, respectively; all three identify it with the traditional real number 1. Note that what Rudin and Enderton call a Dedekind cut, Richman calls a "nonprincipal Dedekind cut".</ref> Every positive decimal expansion easily determines a Dedekind cut: the set of rational numbers which are less than some stage of the expansion. So the real number 0.999… is the set of rational numbers ''r'' such that ''r'' < 0, or ''r'' < 0.9, or ''r'' < 0.99, or ''r'' is less than some other number of the form <math>\begin{align}1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^n\end{align}</math>.<ref>Richman p.399</ref> Every element of 0.999… is less than 1, so it is an element of the real number 1. Conversely, an element of 1 is a rational number<br />
<math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1\end{align}</math>, which implies <math>\begin{align}\tfrac{a}{b}<1-\left(\tfrac{1}{10}\right)^b\end{align}</math>. Since 0.999… and 1 contain the same rational numbers, they are the same set: 0.999… = 1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Dedekind cuts was first published by [[Richard Dedekind]] in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2">{{cite web |url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Real_numbers_2.html |title=History topic: The real numbers: Stevin to Hilbert |author=J J O'Connor and E F Robertson |work=MacTutor History of Mathematics |month=October | year=2005 |accessdate=2006-08-30}}</ref><br />
The above approach to assigning a real number to each decimal expansion is due to an expository paper titled "Is 0.999 … = 1?" by Fred Richman in ''[[Mathematics Magazine]]'', which is targeted at teachers of collegiate mathematics, especially at the junior/senior level, and their students.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.maa.org/pubs/mm-guide.html |title=Mathematics Magazine:Guidelines for Authors |publisher=[[Mathematical Association of America]] |accessdate=2006-08-23}}</ref> Richman notes that taking Dedekind cuts in any [[dense subset]] of the rational numbers yields the same results; in particular, he uses [[decimal fraction]]s, for which the proof is more immediate: "So we see that in the traditional definition of the real numbers, the equation 0.9* = 1 is built in at the beginning."<ref>Richman pp.398–399</ref> A further modification of the procedure leads to a different structure that Richman is more interested in describing; see "[[#Alternative number systems|Alternative number systems]]" below.<br />
<br />
====Cauchy sequences====<br />
{{further|[[Cauchy sequence]]}}<br />
<br />
Another approach to constructing the real numbers uses the ordering of rationals less directly. First, the distance between ''x'' and ''y'' is defined as the absolute value |''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''|, where the absolute value |''z''| is defined as the maximum of ''z'' and −''z'', thus never negative. Then the reals are defined to be the sequences of rationals that have the [[Cauchy sequence]] property using this distance. That is, in the sequence (''x''<sub>0</sub>, ''x''<sub>1</sub>, ''x''<sub>2</sub>, …), a mapping from natural numbers to rationals, for any positive rational δ there is an ''N'' such that |''x''<sub>''m''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''x''<sub>''n''</sub>|&nbsp;≤&nbsp;δ for all ''m'', ''n''&nbsp;>&nbsp;''N''. (The distance between terms becomes smaller than any positive rational.)<ref>Griffiths & Hilton §24.2 "Sequences" p.386</ref><br />
<br />
If (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>) and (''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) are two Cauchy sequences, then they are defined to be equal as real numbers if the sequence (''x''<sub>''n''</sub>&nbsp;−&nbsp;''y''<sub>''n''</sub>) has the limit 0. Truncations of the decimal number ''b''<sub>0</sub>.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… generate a sequence of rationals which is Cauchy; this is taken to define the real value of the number.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.388, 393</ref> Thus in this formalism the task is to show that the sequence of rational numbers<br />
:<math>\left(1 - 0, 1 - {9 \over 10}, 1 - {99 \over 100}, \dots\right)<br />
= \left(1, {1 \over 10}, {1 \over 100}, \dots \right)</math><br />
<br />
has the limit 0. Considering the ''n''th term of the sequence, for ''n''=0,1,2,…, it must therefore be shown that<br />
:<math>\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{10^n} = 0.</math><br />
<br />
This limit is plain;<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.395</ref> one possible proof is that for ε = ''a''/''b'' > 0 one can take ''N''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''b'' in the definition of the [[limit of a sequence]]. So again 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1.<br />
<br />
The definition of real numbers as Cauchy sequences was first published separately by [[Eduard Heine]] and [[Georg Cantor]], also in 1872.<ref name="MacTutor2" /> The above approach to decimal expansions, including the proof that 0.999… = 1, closely follows Griffiths & Hilton's 1970 work ''A comprehensive textbook of classical mathematics: A contemporary interpretation''. The book is written specifically to offer a second look at familiar concepts in a contemporary light.<ref>Griffiths & Hilton pp.viii, 395</ref><br />
<br />
==Generalizations==<br />
The result that 0.999… = 1 generalizes readily in two ways. First, every nonzero number with a finite decimal notation (equivalently, endless trailing 0s) has a counterpart with trailing 9s. For example, 0.24999… equals 0.25, exactly as in the special case considered. These numbers are exactly the decimal fractions, and they are [[Dense set|dense]].<ref>Petkovšek p.408</ref><br />
<br />
Second, a comparable theorem applies in each radix or [[base (mathematics)|base]]. For example, in base 2 (the [[binary numeral system]]) 0.111… equals 1, and in base 3 (the [[ternary numeral system]]) 0.222… equals 1. Textbooks of real analysis are likely to skip the example of 0.999… and present one or both of these generalizations from the start.<ref>Protter and Morrey p.503; Bartle and Sherbert p.61</ref><br />
<br />
Alternative representations of 1 also occur in non-integer bases. For example, in the [[golden ratio base]], the two standard representations are 1.000… and 0.101010…, and there are infinitely many more representations that include adjacent 1s. Generally, for [[almost all]] ''q'' between 1 and 2, there are uncountably many base-''q'' expansions of 1. On the other hand, there are still uncountably many ''q'' (including all natural numbers greater than 1) for which there is only one base-''q'' expansion of 1, other than the trivial 1.000…. This result was first obtained by [[Paul Erdős]], Miklos Horváth, and István Joó around 1990. In 1998 Vilmos Komornik and Paola Loreti determined the smallest such base, the [[Komornik–Loreti constant]] ''q'' = 1.787231650…. In this base, 1 = 0.11010011001011010010110011010011…; the digits are given by the [[Thue–Morse sequence]], which does not repeat.<ref>Komornik and Loreti p.636</ref><br />
<br />
A more far-reaching generalization addresses [[non-standard positional numeral systems|the most general positional numeral systems]]. They too have multiple representations, and in some sense the difficulties are even worse. For example:<ref>Kempner p.611; Petkovšek p.409</ref><br />
*In the [[balanced ternary]] system, <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> = 0.111… = 1.<u>111</u>….<br />
*In the reverse [[factoradic]] system (using bases 2,3,4,... for positions ''after'' the decimal point), 1 = 1.000… = 0.1234….<br />
Marko Petkovšek has proved that such ambiguities are necessary consequences of using a positional system: for any such system that names all the real numbers, the set of reals with multiple representations is always dense. He calls the proof "an instructive exercise in elementary [[point-set topology]]"; it involves viewing sets of positional values as [[Stone space]]s and noticing that their real representations are given by [[continuous function (topology)|continuous functions]].<ref>Petkovšek pp.410–411</ref><br />
<br />
==Applications==<br />
One application of 0.999… as a representation of 1 occurs in elementary [[number theory]]. In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation on the appearance of 9s in the repeating-decimal representations of fractions whose denominators are certain [[prime number]]s. Examples include:<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>7</sub> = 0.142857142857… and 142 + 857 = 999.<br />
*<sup>1</sup>/<sub>73</sub> = 0.0136986301369863… and 0136 + 9863 = 9999.<br />
E. Midy proved a general result about such fractions, now called ''[[Midy's theorem]]'', in 1836. The publication was obscure, and it is unclear if his proof directly involved 0.999…, but at least one modern proof by W. G. Leavitt does. If one can prove that a decimal of the form 0.''b''<sub>1</sub>''b''<sub>2</sub>''b''<sub>3</sub>… is a positive integer, then it must be 0.999…, which is then the source of the 9s in the theorem.<ref>Leavitt 1984 p.301</ref> Investigations in this direction can motivate such concepts as [[greatest common divisor]]s, [[modular arithmetic]], [[Fermat prime]]s, [[order (group theory)|order]] of [[group (mathematics)|group]] elements, and [[quadratic reciprocity]].<ref>Lewittes pp.1–3; Leavitt 1967 pp.669,673; Shrader-Frechette pp.96–98</ref><br />
<br />
[[Image:Cantor base 3.svg|right|thumb|Positions of <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub>, <sup>2</sup>/<sub>3</sub>, and 1 in the [[Cantor set]]]]<br />
Returning to real analysis, the base-3 analogue 0.222… = 1 plays a key role in a characterization of one of the simplest [[fractal]]s, the middle-thirds [[Cantor set]]:<br />
*A point in the [[unit interval]] lies in the Cantor set if and only if it can be represented in ternary using only the digits 0 and 2.<br />
<br />
The ''n''th digit of the representation reflects the position of the point in the ''n''th stage of the construction. For example, the point ²⁄<sub>3</sub> is given the usual representation of 0.2 or 0.2000…, since it lies to the right of the first deletion and to the left of every deletion thereafter. The point <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> is represented not as 0.1 but as 0.0222…, since it lies to the left of the first deletion and to the right of every deletion thereafter.<ref>Pugh p.97; Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke pp.150–152. Protter and Morrey (p.507) and Pedrick (p.29) assign this description as an exercise.</ref><br />
<br />
Repeating nines also turn up in yet another of Georg Cantor's works. They must be taken into account to construct a valid proof, applying [[Cantor's diagonal argument|his 1891 diagonal argument]] to decimal expansions, of the [[uncountability]] of the unit interval. Such a proof needs to be able to declare certain pairs of real numbers to be different based on their decimal expansions, so one needs to avoid pairs like 0.2 and 0.1999… . A simple method represents all numbers with nonterminating expansions; the opposite method rules out repeating nines.<ref>Maor (p.60) and Mankiewicz (p.151) review the former method; Mankiewicz attributes it to Cantor, but the primary source is unclear. Munkres (p.50) mentions the latter method.</ref> A variant that may be closer to Cantor's original argument actually uses base 2, and by turning base-3 expansions into base-2 expansions, one can prove the uncountability of the Cantor set as well.<ref>Rudin p.50, Pugh p.98</ref><br />
<br />
==Skepticism in education==<br />
Students of mathematics often reject the equality of 0.999… and 1, for reasons ranging from their disparate appearance to deep misgivings over the [[Limit of a sequence|limit]] concept and disagreements over the nature of [[infinitesimal]]s. There are many common contributing factors to the confusion:<br />
*Students are often "mentally committed to the notion that a number can be represented in one and only one way by a decimal." Seeing two manifestly different decimals representing the same number appears to be a [[paradox]], which is amplified by the appearance of the seemingly well-understood number 1.<ref>Bunch p.119; Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6. The last suggestion is due to Burrell (p.28): "Perhaps the most reassuring of all numbers is 1.…So it is particularly unsettling when someone tries to pass off 0.9~ as 1."</ref><br />
*Some students interpret "0.999…" (or similar notation) as a large but finite string of 9s, possibly with a variable, unspecified length. If they accept an infinite string of nines, they may still expect a last 9 "at infinity".<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger pp.6–7; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Intuition and ambiguous teaching lead students to think of the limit of a sequence as a kind of infinite process rather than a fixed value, since a sequence need not reach its limit. Where students accept the difference between a sequence of numbers and its limit, they might read "0.999…" as meaning the sequence rather than its limit.<ref>Tall and Schwarzenberger p.6; Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
*Some students regard 0.999… as having a fixed value which is less than 1 by an [[infinitesimal]] but non-zero amount.<br />
*Some students believe that the value of a [[convergent series]] is at best an approximation, that <math>0.\bar{9} \approx 1</math>.<br />
These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive [[counterexample]]s to better understand 0.999….<br />
<br />
Many of these explanations were found by professor [[David O. Tall]], who has studied characteristics of teaching and cognition that lead to some of the misunderstandings he has encountered in his college students. Interviewing his students to determine why the vast majority initially rejected the equality, he found that "students continued to conceive of 0.999… as a sequence of numbers getting closer and closer to 1 and not a fixed value, because 'you haven’t specified how many places there are' or 'it is the nearest possible decimal below 1'".<ref>Tall 2000 p.221</ref><br />
<br />
Of the elementary proofs, multiplying 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> by 3 is apparently a successful strategy for convincing reluctant students that 0.999… = 1. Still, when confronted with the conflict between their belief of the first equation and their disbelief of the second, some students either begin to disbelieve the first equation or simply become frustrated.<ref>Tall 1976 pp.10–14</ref> Nor are more sophisticated methods foolproof: students who are fully capable of applying rigorous definitions may still fall back on intuitive images when they are surprised by a result in advanced mathematics, including 0.999…. For example, one real analysis student was able to prove that 0.333… = <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> using a [[supremum]] definition, but then insisted that 0.999… < 1 based on her earlier understanding of long division.<ref>Pinto and Tall p.5, Edwards and Ward pp.416–417</ref> Others still are able to prove that <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> = 0.333…, but, upon being confronted by the [[#Fractions|fractional proof]], insist that "logic" supersedes the mathematical calculations.<br />
<br />
[[Joseph Mazur]] tells the tale of an otherwise brilliant calculus student of his who "challenged almost everything I said in class but never questioned his calculator," and who had come to believe that nine digits are all one needs to do mathematics, including calculating the square root of 23. The student remained uncomfortable with a limiting argument that 9.99… = 10, calling it a "wildly imagined infinite growing process."<ref>Mazur pp.137–141</ref><br />
<br />
As part of Ed Dubinsky's "[[APOS theory]]" of mathematical learning, Dubinsky and his collaborators (2005) propose that students who conceive of 0.999… as a finite, indeterminate string with an infinitely small distance from 1 have "not yet constructed a complete process conception of the infinite decimal". Other students who have a complete process conception of 0.999… may not yet be able to "encapsulate" that process into an "object conception", like the object conception they have of 1, and so they view the process 0.999… and the object 1 as incompatible. Dubinsky ''et al.'' also link this mental ability of encapsulation to viewing <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> as a number in its own right and to dealing with the set of natural numbers as a whole.<ref>Dubinsky ''et al.'' 261–262</ref><br />
<br />
==In popular culture==<br />
<br />
With the rise of the [[Internet]], debates about 0.999… have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on [[newsgroup]]s and [[message board]]s, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. In the newsgroup <tt>[news:sci.math sci.math]</tt>, arguing over 0.999… is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its [[FAQ]].<ref>As observed by Richman (p.396). {{cite web |url=http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/specialnumbers/0.999eq1/ |author=Hans de Vreught | year=1994 | title=sci.math FAQ: Why is 0.9999… = 1? |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref> The FAQ briefly covers <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>, multiplication by 10, and limits, and it alludes to Cauchy sequences as well.<br />
<br />
A 2003 edition of the general-interest [[newspaper column]] ''[[The Straight Dope]]'' discusses 0.999… via <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> and limits, saying of misconceptions,<br />
<blockquote><br />
The lower primate in us still resists, saying: .999~ doesn't really represent a ''number'', then, but a ''process''. To find a number we have to halt the process, at which point the .999~ = 1 thing falls apart.<br />
<br />
Nonsense.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030711.html |title=An infinite question: Why doesn't .999~ = 1? |date=2003-07-11 |author=[[Cecil Adams]] |work=[[The Straight Dope]] |publisher=[[Chicago Reader]] |accessdate=2006-09-06}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
''The Straight Dope'' cites a discussion on its own message board that grew out of an unidentified "other message board … mostly about video games". In the same vein, the question of 0.999… proved such a popular topic in the first seven years of [[Blizzard Entertainment]]'s [[Battle.net]] forums that the company issued a "press release" on [[April Fools' Day]] 2004 that it is 1:<br />
<blockquote><br />
We are very excited to close the book on this subject once and for all. We've witnessed the heartache and concern over whether .999~ does or does not equal 1, and we're proud that the following proof finally and conclusively addresses the issue for our customers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?040401 |title=Blizzard Entertainment Announces .999~ (Repeating) = 1 |work=Press Release |publisher=Blizzard Entertainment |date=2004-04-01 |accessdate=2009-11-16}}</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
Two proofs are then offered, based on limits and multiplication by 10.<br />
<br />
0.999… features also in mathematical folklore, specifically in the following joke:<ref>Renteln and Dundes, p.27</ref> <br />
<blockquote><br />
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
A: 0.999999….<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==0.999... in alternative number systems==<br />
Although the real numbers form an extremely useful [[number system]], the decision to interpret the notation "0.999…" as naming a real number is ultimately a convention, and [[Timothy Gowers]] argues in ''Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction'' that the resulting identity 0.999… = 1 is a convention as well:<br />
<blockquote><br />
However, it is by no means an arbitrary convention, because not adopting it forces one either to invent strange new objects or to abandon some of the familiar rules of arithmetic.<ref>Gowers p.60</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
One can define other number systems using different rules or new objects; in some such number systems, the above proofs would need to be reinterpreted and one might find that, in a given number system, 0.999… and 1 might not be identical. However, many number systems are extensions of&nbsp;— rather than independent alternatives to&nbsp;— the real number system, so 0.999… = 1 continues to hold. Even in such number systems, though, it is worthwhile to examine alternative number systems, not only for how 0.999… behaves (if, indeed, a number expressed as "0.999…" is both meaningful and unambiguous), but also for the behavior of related phenomena. If such phenomena differ from those in the real number system, then at least one of the assumptions built into the system must break down.<br />
<br />
===Infinitesimals===<br />
{{main|Infinitesimal}}<br />
<br />
Some proofs that 0.999… = 1 rely on the [[Archimedean property]] of the standard real numbers: there are no nonzero [[infinitesimal]]s. There are mathematically coherent ordered [[algebraic structure]]s, including various alternatives to standard reals, which are non-Archimedean. The meaning of 0.999… depends on which structure we use. For example, the [[dual number]]s include a new infinitesimal element ε, analogous to the imaginary unit ''i'' in the [[complex number]]s except that ε²&nbsp;=&nbsp;0. The resulting structure is useful in [[automatic differentiation]]. The dual numbers can be given a [[lexicographic order]], in which case the multiples of ε become non-Archimedean elements.<ref>Berz 439–442</ref> Note, however, that, as an extension of the real numbers, the dual numbers still have 0.999…=1. On a related note, while ε exists in dual numbers, so does ε/2, so ε is not "the smallest positive dual number," and, indeed, as in the reals, no such number exists.<br />
<br />
[[Non-standard analysis]] provides a number system with a full array of infinitesimals (and their inverses).<ref>For a full treatment of non-standard numbers see for example Robinson's ''Non-standard Analysis''.</ref> A.H. Lightstone developed a decimal expansion for the non-standard real numbers in (0, 1)<sup>∗</sup>.<ref>Lightstone pp.245–247</ref> Lightstone shows how to associate to each extended real number a sequence of digits<br />
:0.d<sub>1</sub>d<sub>2</sub>d<sub>3</sub>…;…d<sub>∞−1</sub>d<sub>∞</sub>d<sub>∞+1</sub>…<br />
indexed by the extended natural numbers. While he does not directly discuss 0.999…, he shows the real number 1/3 is represented by 0.333…;…333… which is a consequence of the [[transfer principle]]. Multiplying by 3, one obtains analogous facts for expansions with repeating 9s.<br />
The hyperreal number ''u''<sub>''H''</sub>=0.999…;…999000… with ''H''-infinitely many 9s, for some infinite [[hyperinteger]] ''H'', satisfies a strict inequality ''u''<sub>''H''</sub> < 1.{{Fact|date=January 2009}} Indeed, the sequence u<sub>1</sub>=0.9, u<sub>2</sub>=0.99, u<sub>3</sub>=0.999, etc. satisfies u<sub>n</sub> = 1 - 1/n, hence by the transfer principle u<sub>H</sub> = 1 - 1/H < 1. Lightstone shows that in this system 0.333...;...000... and 0.999...;...000... are not numbers. <br />
<br />
Karin Katz and [[Mikhail Katz]] have developed an alternative to the unital evaluation of the symbol "0.999..." The alternative evaluation is <br />
:<math>.\underset{[\mathbb{N}]}{\underbrace{999\ldots}}\; = 1\;-\;\frac{1}{10^{[\mathbb{N}]}}</math>, <br />
where <math>\langle\mathbb{N}\rangle</math> is the sequence <math>\langle1,2,3,\ldots\rangle</math> listing all the natural numbers in increasing order, while <math>[\mathbb{N}]</math> is the infinite [[hypernatural]] represented by the sequence, in the [[ultrapower]] construction; see Katz & Katz (2010).<br />
<br />
[[Combinatorial game theory]] provides alternative reals as well, with infinite Blue-Red [[Hackenbush]] as one particularly relevant example. In 1974, [[Elwyn Berlekamp]] described a correspondence between [[Hackenbush strings]] and binary expansions of real numbers, motivated by the idea of [[data compression]]. For example, the value of the Hackenbush string LRRLRLRL… is 0.010101<sub>2</sub>…&nbsp;=&nbsp;<sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub>. However, the value of LRLLL… (corresponding to 0.111…<sub>2</sub>) is infinitesimally less than 1. The difference between the two is the [[surreal number]] <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>, where ω is the first [[ordinal number|infinite ordinal]]; the relevant game is LRRRR… or 0.000…<sub>2</sub>.<ref>Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy (pp.79–80, 307–311) discuss 1 and <sup>1</sup>/<sub>3</sub> and touch on <sup>1</sup>/<sub>ω</sub>. The game for 0.111…<sub>2</sub> follows directly from Berlekamp's Rule, and it is discussed by {{cite web |url=http://www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ |title=Hackenstrings and the 0.999… ≟ 1 FAQ |author=A. N. Walker |year=1999 |accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
===Breaking subtraction===<br />
Another manner in which the proofs might be undermined is if 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… simply does not exist, because subtraction is not always possible. Mathematical structures with an addition operation but not a subtraction operation include [[commutative]] [[semigroup]]s, [[commutative monoid]]s and [[semiring]]s. Richman considers two such systems, designed so that 0.999… < 1.<br />
<br />
First, Richman defines a nonnegative ''decimal number'' to be a literal decimal expansion. He defines the [[lexicographical order]] and an addition operation, noting that 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 simply because 0&nbsp;<&nbsp;1 in the ones place, but for any nonterminating ''x'', one has 0.999…&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''. So one peculiarity of the decimal numbers is that addition cannot always be cancelled; another is that no decimal number corresponds to <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>. After defining multiplication, the decimal numbers form a positive, totally ordered, commutative semiring.<ref>Richman pp.397–399</ref><br />
<br />
In the process of defining multiplication, Richman also defines another system he calls "cut ''D''", which is the set of Dedekind cuts of decimal fractions. Ordinarily this definition leads to the real numbers, but for a decimal fraction ''d'' he allows both the cut (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;) and the "principal cut" (−∞,&nbsp;''d''&nbsp;]. The result is that the real numbers are "living uneasily together with" the decimal fractions. Again 0.999…&nbsp;<&nbsp;1. There are no positive infinitesimals in cut ''D'', but there is "a sort of negative infinitesimal," 0<sup>−</sup>, which has no decimal expansion. He concludes that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1&nbsp;+&nbsp;0<sup>−</sup>, while the equation "0.999… + ''x'' = 1"<br />
has no solution.<ref>Richman pp.398–400. Rudin (p.23) assigns this alternative construction (but over the rationals) as the last exercise of Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
===''p''-adic numbers===<br />
{{main|p-adic number}}<br />
<br />
When asked about 0.999…, novices often believe there should be a "final 9," believing 1&nbsp;−&nbsp;0.999… to be a positive number which they write as "0.000…1". Whether or not that makes sense, the intuitive goal is clear: adding a 1 to the last 9 in 0.999… would carry all the 9s into 0s and leave a 1 in the ones place. Among other reasons, this idea fails because there is no "last 9" in 0.999….<ref>Gardiner p.98; Gowers p.60</ref> However, there is a system that contains an infinite string of 9s including a last 9.<br />
<br />
[[Image:4adic 333.svg|right|thumb|200px|The 4-adic integers (black points), including the sequence (3, 33, 333, …) converging to −1. The 10-adic analogue is …999 = −1.]]<br />
<br />
The [[p-adic number|''p''-adic number]]s are an alternative number system of interest in [[number theory]]. Like the real numbers, the ''p''-adic numbers can be built from the rational numbers via [[Cauchy sequence]]s; the construction uses a different metric in which 0 is closer to ''p'', and much closer to ''p<sup>n</sup>'', than it is to 1. The ''p''-adic numbers form a [[field (algebra)|field]] for prime ''p'' and a [[ring (mathematics)|ring]] for other ''p'', including 10. So arithmetic can be performed in the ''p''-adics, and there are no infinitesimals.<br />
<br />
In the 10-adic numbers, the analogues of decimal expansions run to the left. The 10-adic expansion …999 does have a last 9, and it does not have a first 9. One can add 1 to the ones place, and it leaves behind only 0s after carrying through: 1&nbsp;+&nbsp;…999&nbsp;=&nbsp;…000&nbsp;=&nbsp;0, and so …999&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1.<ref name="Fjelstad11">Fjelstad p.11</ref> Another derivation uses a geometric series. The infinite series implied by "…999" does not converge in the real numbers, but it converges in the 10-adics, and so one can re-use the familiar formula:<br />
:<math>\ldots999 = 9 + 9(10) + 9(10)^2 + 9(10)^3 + \cdots = \frac{9}{1-10} = -1.</math><ref>Fjelstad pp.14–15</ref><br />
<br />
(Compare with the series [[#Infinite series and sequences|above]].) A third derivation was invented by a seventh-grader who was doubtful over her teacher's limiting argument that 0.999…&nbsp;=&nbsp;1 but was inspired to take the multiply-by-10 proof [[#Digit manipulation|above]] in the opposite direction: if ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;…999 then 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp; …990, so 10''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;9, hence ''x''&nbsp;=&nbsp;−1 again.<ref name="Fjelstad11" /><br />
<br />
As a final extension, since {{nowrap begin}}0.999… = 1{{nowrap end}} (in the reals) and {{nowrap begin}}…999 = −1{{nowrap end}} (in the 10-adics), then by "blind faith and unabashed juggling of symbols"<ref>DeSua p.901</ref> one may add the two equations and arrive at {{nowrap begin}}…999.999… = 0.{{nowrap end}} This equation does not make sense either as a 10-adic expansion or an ordinary decimal expansion, but it turns out to be meaningful and true if one develops a theory of "double-decimals" with eventually repeating left ends to represent a familiar system: the real numbers.<ref>DeSua pp.902–903</ref><br />
<br />
==Related questions==<br />
<!--[[Intuitionism]] should be worked in somewhere and explained, not necessarily here.--><br />
* [[Zeno's paradoxes]], particularly the paradox of the runner, are reminiscent of the apparent paradox that 0.999… and 1 are equal. The runner paradox can be mathematically modelled and then, like 0.999…, resolved using a geometric series. However, it is not clear if this mathematical treatment addresses the underlying metaphysical issues Zeno was exploring.<ref>Wallace p.51, Maor p.17</ref><br />
* [[Division by zero]] occurs in some popular discussions of 0.999…, and it also stirs up contention. While most authors choose to define 0.999…, almost all modern treatments leave division by zero undefined, as it can be given no meaning in the standard real numbers. However, division by zero is defined in some other systems, such as [[complex analysis]], where the [[extended complex plane]], i.e. the [[Riemann sphere]], has a "[[point at infinity]]". Here, it makes sense to define <sup>1</sup>/<sub>0</sub> to be infinity;<ref>See, for example, J.B. Conway's treatment of Möbius transformations, pp.47–57</ref> and, in fact, the results are profound and applicable to many problems in engineering and physics. Some prominent mathematicians argued for such a definition long before either number system was developed.<ref>Maor p.54</ref><br />
* [[Negative zero]] is another redundant feature of many ways of writing numbers. In number systems, such as the real numbers, where "0" denotes the additive identity and is neither positive nor negative, the usual interpretation of "−0" is that it should denote the additive inverse of 0, which forces −0&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.<ref>Munkres p.34, Exercise 1(c)</ref> Nonetheless, some scientific applications use separate positive and negative zeroes, as do some of the most common computer number systems (for example integers stored in the [[sign and magnitude]] or [[one's complement]] formats, or floating point numbers as specified by the [[IEEE floating-point standard]]).<ref>{{cite book |author=Kroemer, Herbert; Kittel, Charles |title=Thermal Physics |edition=2e |publisher=W. H. Freeman |year=1980 |isbn=0-7167-1088-9 |page=462}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/csspec/html/vclrfcsharpspec_4_1_6.asp |title=Floating point types |work=[[Microsoft Developer Network|MSDN]] C# Language Specification |accessdate=2006-08-29}}</ref><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
{{Col-begin}}<br />
{{Col-1-of-3}}<br />
* [[Decimal representation]]<br />
* [[Infinity]]<br />
{{Col-2-of-3}}<br />
* [[Limit (mathematics)]]<br />
* [[Informal mathematics|Naive mathematics]]<br />
* [[Non-standard analysis]]<br />
{{Col-3-of-3}}<br />
* [[Real analysis]]<br />
* [[Series (mathematics)]]<br />
<br />
{{col-end}}<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{refbegin|colwidth=30em}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke |year=1996 |title=Chaos: An introduction to dynamical systems |chapter=4.1 Cantor Sets |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94677-2}}<br />
*:This introductory textbook on dynamical systems is aimed at undergraduate and beginning graduate students. (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Apostol |first=Tom M. |year=1974 |title=Mathematical analysis |edition=2e |publisher=Addison-Wesley |isbn=0-201-00288-4}}<br />
*:A transition from calculus to advanced analysis, ''Mathematical analysis'' is intended to be "honest, rigorous, up to date, and, at the same time, not too pedantic." (pref.) Apostol's development of the real numbers uses the least upper bound axiom and introduces infinite decimals two pages later. (pp.9–11)<br />
*{{cite book |author=Bartle, R.G. and D.R. Sherbert |year=1982 |title=Introduction to real analysis |publisher=Wiley |isbn=0-471-05944-7}}<br />
*:This text aims to be "an accessible, reasonably paced textbook that deals with the fundamental concepts and techniques of real analysis." Its development of the real numbers relies on the supremum axiom. (pp.vii-viii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Beals |first=Richard |title=Analysis |year=2004 |publisher=Cambridge UP |isbn=0-521-60047-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=[[Elwyn Berlekamp|Berlekamp, E.R.]]; [[John Horton Conway|J.H. Conway]]; and [[Richard K. Guy|R.K. Guy]] |year=1982 |title=[[Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays]] |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=0-12-091101-9}}<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Berz |first=Martin |title=Automatic differentiation as nonarchimedean analysis |year=1992 |booktitle=Computer Arithmetic and Enclosure Methods |publisher=Elsevier |pages=439–450 |url=http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/berz92automatic.html}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Bunch |first=Bryan H. |title=Mathematical fallacies and paradoxes |year=1982 |publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold |isbn=0-442-24905-5}}<br />
*:This book presents an analysis of paradoxes and fallacies as a tool for exploring its central topic, "the rather tenuous relationship between mathematical reality and physical reality". It assumes first-year high-school algebra; further mathematics is developed in the book, including geometric series in Chapter 2. Although 0.999… is not one of the paradoxes to be fully treated, it is briefly mentioned during a development of Cantor's diagonal method. (pp.ix-xi, 119)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Burrell |first=Brian |title=Merriam-Webster's Guide to Everyday Math: A Home and Business Reference |year=1998 |publisher=Merriam-Webster |isbn=0-87779-621-1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Conway |first=John B. |authorlink=John B. Conway |title=Functions of one complex variable I |edition=2e |publisher=Springer-Verlag |origyear=1973 |year=1978 |isbn=0-387-90328-3}}<br />
*:This text assumes "a stiff course in basic calculus" as a prerequisite; its stated principles are to present complex analysis as "An Introduction to Mathematics" and to state the material clearly and precisely. (p.vii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Davies |first=Charles |year=1846 |title=The University Arithmetic: Embracing the Science of Numbers, and Their Numerous Applications |publisher=A.S. Barnes |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02026287&pg=PA175}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=DeSua |first=Frank C. |title=A system isomorphic to the reals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=67 |number=9 |month=November |year=1960 |pages=900–903 |doi=10.2307/2309468 |issue=9}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Dubinsky, Ed, Kirk Weller, Michael McDonald, and Anne Brown |title=Some historical issues and paradoxes regarding the concept of infinity: an APOS analysis: part 2 |journal=Educational Studies in Mathematics |year=2005 |volume=60 |pages=253–266 |doi=10.1007/s10649-005-0473-0}}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Edwards, Barbara and Michael Ward |year=2004 |month=May |title=Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=111 |number=5 |pages=411–425 |url=http://www.wou.edu/~wardm/FromMonthlyMay2004.pdf |doi=10.2307/4145268|format=PDF |issue=5}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Enderton |first=Herbert B. |year=1977 |title=Elements of set theory |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=0-12-238440-7}}<br />
*:An introductory undergraduate textbook in set theory that "presupposes no specific background". It is written to accommodate a course focusing on axiomatic set theory or on the construction of number systems; the axiomatic material is marked such that it may be de-emphasized. (pp.xi-xii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Euler |first=Leonhard |authorlink=Leonhard Euler |origyear=1770 |year=1822 |edition=3rd English |title=Elements of Algebra |editor=John Hewlett and Francis Horner, English translators. |publisher=Orme Longman |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=X8yv0sj4_1YC&pg=PA170 |isbn=0387960147}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Fjelstad |first=Paul |title=The repeating integer paradox |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=26 |number=1 |month=January |year=1995 |pages=11–15 |doi=10.2307/2687285 |issue=1}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gardiner |first=Anthony |title=Understanding Infinity: The Mathematics of Infinite Processes |origyear=1982 |year=2003 |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-42538-X}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Gowers |first=Timothy|authorlink= William Timothy Gowers|title=Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction |year=2002 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-285361-9}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Grattan-Guinness |first=Ivor |year=1970 |title=The development of the foundations of mathematical analysis from Euler to Riemann |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=0-262-07034-0}}<br />
*{{cite book | last=Griffiths | first=H.B. | coauthors=P.J. Hilton | title=A Comprehensive Textbook of Classical Mathematics: A Contemporary Interpretation | year=1970 | publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold | location=London | isbn=0-442-02863-6. {{LCC|QA37.2|G75}}}}<br />
*:This book grew out of a course for [[Birmingham]]-area [[grammar school]] mathematics teachers. The course was intended to convey a university-level perspective on [[mathematics education|school mathematics]], and the book is aimed at students "who have reached roughly the level of completing one year of specialist mathematical study at a university". The real numbers are constructed in Chapter 24, "perhaps the most difficult chapter in the entire book", although the authors ascribe much of the difficulty to their use of [[ideal theory]], which is not reproduced here. (pp.vii, xiv)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Kempner |first=A.J. |title=Anormal Systems of Numeration |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=43 |number=10 |month=December |year=1936 |pages=610–617 |doi=10.2307/2300532 |issue=10 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Komornik, Vilmos; and Paola Loreti |title=Unique Developments in Non-Integer Bases |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=105 |number=7 |year=1998 |pages=636–639 |doi=10.2307/2589246 |issue=7 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=A Theorem on Repeating Decimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |volume=74 |number=6 |year=1967 |pages=669–673 |doi=10.2307/2314251 |issue=6 }}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Leavitt |first=W.G. |title=Repeating Decimals |journal=The College Mathematics Journal |volume=15 |number=4 |month=September |year=1984 |pages=299–308 |doi=10.2307/2686394 |issue=4 }}<br />
*{{cite web | url=http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0605182 |title=Midy's Theorem for Periodic Decimals |last=Lewittes |first=Joseph |work=New York Number Theory Workshop on Combinatorial and Additive Number Theory |year=2006 |publisher=[[arXiv]]}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Lightstone |first=A.H. |title=Infinitesimals |journal=The American Mathematical Monthly |year=1972 |volume=79 |number=3 |month=March |pages=242–251 |doi=10.2307/2316619 |issue=3 }}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mankiewicz |first=Richard |year=2000 |title=The story of mathematics|publisher=Cassell |isbn=0-304-35473-2}}<br />
*:Mankiewicz seeks to represent "the history of mathematics in an accessible style" by combining visual and qualitative aspects of mathematics, mathematicians' writings, and historical sketches. (p.8)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Maor |first=Eli |title=To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite |year=1987 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=3-7643-3325-1}}<br />
*:A topical rather than chronological review of infinity, this book is "intended for the general reader" but "told from the point of view of a mathematician". On the dilemma of rigor versus readable language, Maor comments, "I hope I have succeeded in properly addressing this problem." (pp.x-xiii)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Mazur |first=Joseph |title=Euclid in the Rainforest: Discovering Universal Truths in Logic and Math |year=2005 |publisher=Pearson: Pi Press |isbn=0-13-147994-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Munkres |first=James R. |title=Topology |year=2000 |origyear=1975 |edition=2e |publisher=Prentice-Hall |isbn=0-13-181629-2}}<br />
*:Intended as an introduction "at the senior or first-year graduate level" with no formal prerequisites: "I do not even assume the reader knows much set theory." (p.xi) Munkres' treatment of the reals is axiomatic; he claims of bare-hands constructions, "This way of approaching the subject takes a good deal of time and effort and is of greater logical than mathematical interest." (p.30)<br />
*{{cite conference |last=Núñez |first=Rafael |title=Do Real Numbers Really Move? Language, Thought, and Gesture: The Embodied Cognitive Foundations of Mathematics |year=2006 |booktitle=18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics |publisher=Springer |pages=160–181 |url=http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/publications.html | id=ISBN 978-0-387-25717-4}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pedrick |first=George |title=A First Course in Analysis |year=1994 |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-94108-8}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Petkovšek |first=Marko |title=Ambiguous Numbers are Dense |journal=[[American Mathematical Monthly]] |volume=97 |number=5 |month=May |year=1990 |pages=408–411 |doi=10.2307/2324393 |issue=5 }}<br />
*{{cite conference |author=Pinto, Márcia and David Tall |title=Following students' development in a traditional university analysis course |booktitle=PME25 |pages=v4: 57–64 |year=2001 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001j-pme25-pinto-tall.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Protter, M.H. and [[Charles B. Morrey, Jr.|C.B. Morrey]] |year=1991 |edition=2e |title=A first course in real analysis |publisher=Springer |isbn=0-387-97437-7}}<br />
*:This book aims to "present a theoretical foundation of analysis that is suitable for students who have completed a standard course in calculus." (p.vii) At the end of Chapter 2, the authors assume as an axiom for the real numbers that bounded, nodecreasing sequences converge, later proving the nested intervals theorem and the least upper bound property. (pp.56–64) Decimal expansions appear in Appendix 3, "Expansions of real numbers in any base". (pp.503–507)<br />
*{{cite book |last=Pugh |first=Charles Chapman |title=Real mathematical analysis |year=2001 |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=0-387-95297-7}}<br />
*:While assuming familiarity with the rational numbers, Pugh introduces [[Dedekind cut]]s as soon as possible, saying of the axiomatic treatment, "This is something of a fraud, considering that the entire structure of analysis is built on the real number system." (p.10) After proving the least upper bound property and some allied facts, cuts are not used in the rest of the book.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=Renteln, Paul and Allan Dundes |year=2005 |month=January |title=Foolproof: A Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humor |journal=[[Notices of the AMS]] |volume=52 |number=1 |pages=24–34 |url=http://www.ams.org/notices/200501/fea-dundes.pdf|doi=|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |first=Fred |last=Richman |year=1999 |month=December |title=Is 0.999… = 1? |journal=[[Mathematics Magazine]] |volume=72 |issue=5 |pages=396–400 }} Free HTML preprint: {{cite web |url=http://www.math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm |first=Fred|last=Richman|title=Is 0.999… = 1? |date=1999-06-08 |accessdate=2006-08-23}} Note: the journal article contains material and wording not found in the preprint.<br />
*{{cite book |last=Robinson |first=Abraham |authorlink=Abraham Robinson |title=Non-standard analysis |year=1996 |edition=Revised |publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=0-691-04490-2}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rosenlicht |first=Maxwell |year=1985 |title=Introduction to Analysis |publisher=Dover |isbn=0-486-65038-3}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Rudin |first=Walter |authorlink=Walter Rudin |title=Principles of mathematical analysis |edition=3e |year=1976 |origyear=1953 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=0-07-054235-X}}<br />
*:A textbook for an advanced undergraduate course. "Experience has convinced me that it is pedagogically unsound (though logically correct) to start off with the construction of the real numbers from the rational ones. At the beginning, most students simply fail to appreciate the need for doing this. Accordingly, the real number system is introduced as an ordered field with the least-upper-bound property, and a few interesting applications of this property are quickly made. However, Dedekind's construction is not omitted. It is now in an Appendix to Chapter 1, where it may be studied and enjoyed whenever the time is ripe." (p.ix)<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Shrader-Frechette |first=Maurice |title=Complementary Rational Numbers |journal=Mathematics Magazine |volume=51 |number=2 |month=March |year=1978 |pages=90–98 }}<br />
*{{cite book |author=Smith, Charles and Charles Harrington |year=1895 |title=Arithmetic for Schools |publisher=Macmillan |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN02029670&pg=PA115}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Sohrab |first=Houshang |title=Basic Real Analysis |year=2003 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=0-8176-4211-0}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=Ian |title=The Foundations of Mathematics |year=1977 |publisher=Oxford UP |isbn=0-19-853165-6}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Stewart |first=James |title=Calculus: Early transcendentals |edition=4e |year=1999 |publisher=Brooks/Cole |isbn=0-534-36298-2}}<br />
*:This book aims to "assist students in discovering calculus" and "to foster conceptual understanding". (p.v) It omits proofs of the foundations of calculus.<br />
*{{cite journal |author=D.O. Tall and R.L.E. Schwarzenberger |title=Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits |journal=Mathematics Teaching |year=1978 |volume=82 |pages=44–49 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1978c-with-rolph.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |authorlink=David O. Tall |title=Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics |journal=Mathematical Education for Teaching |year=1976/7 |volume=2 |number=4 |pages=2–18 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1976a-confl-catastrophy.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |title=Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology |journal=Mathematics Education Research Journal |year=2000 |volume=12 |number=3 |pages=210–230 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001b-merj-amt.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}<br />
*{{cite book|last=von Mangoldt|first=Dr. Hans|authorlink =Hans Carl Friedrich von Mangoldt| title=Einführung in die höhere Mathematik|edition=1st|year=1911|publisher=Verlag von S. Hirzel| location=Leipzig|language=German|chapter=Reihenzahlen}}<br />
*{{cite book |last=Wallace |first=David Foster|authorlink =David Foster Wallace |title=Everything and more: a compact history of infinity |year=2003 |publisher=Norton |isbn=0-393-00338-8}}<br />
{{refend}}<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
{{Spoken Wikipedia|0.999....ogg|2006-10-19}}<br />
{{commons|0.999...}}<br />
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/999999.shtml .999999… = 1?] from [[cut-the-knot]]<br />
* [http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html Why does 0.9999… = 1 ?]<br />
* [http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99167.htm Ask A Scientist: Repeating Decimals]<br />
* [http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.00/joan2.html Proof of the equality based on arithmetic]<br />
* [http://descmath.com/diag/nines.html Repeating Nines]<br />
* [http://qntm.org/pointnine Point nine recurring equals one]<br />
* [http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/themes/limits-infinity.html David Tall's research on mathematics cognition]<br />
* [http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/decimals.html What is so wrong with thinking of real numbers as infinite decimals?]<br />
* [http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/0.999....html Theorem 0.999...] on [[Metamath]]<br />
* [http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/anw/Research/Hack/ Hackenstrings, and the 0.999... ?= 1 FAQ]<br />
* [http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-friendly-chat-about-whether-0-999-1/ A Friendly Chat About Whether 0.999… = 1]<br />
*Katz, K.; [[Mikhail Katz|Katz, M.]] (2010) When is .999... less than 1? [[The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast]], Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3--30. http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/vol7no1/<br />
<br />
{{featured article}}<br />
<br />
<!-- [[en:0.999...]] --><br />
<br />
[[Category:One]]<br />
[[Category:Mathematics paradoxes]]<br />
[[Category:Real analysis]]<br />
[[Category:Real numbers]]<br />
[[Category:Numeration]]<br />
[[Category:Articles containing proofs]]<br />
<br />
{{Link FA|hu}}<br />
{{Link FA|ja}}<br />
{{Link FA|zh}}<br />
<br />
[[ar:0.999...]]<br />
[[be:0,(9)]]<br />
[[be-x-old:0,(9)]]<br />
[[bg:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ca:0,999...]]<br />
[[da:0,999...]]<br />
[[de:Eins#Periodischer Dezimalbruch]]<br />
[[el:0,999...]]<br />
[[es:0,9 periódico]]<br />
[[eo:0,999...]]<br />
[[fa:۰٫۹۹۹…]]<br />
[[fr:Développement décimal de l'unité]]<br />
[[ko:0.999…]]<br />
[[id:0,999...]]<br />
[[it:0,999...]]<br />
[[he:0.999...]]<br />
[[ka:0.999...]]<br />
[[lv:0,999...]]<br />
[[hu:0,999…]]<br />
[[ml:0.999...]]<br />
[[ms:0.999...]]<br />
[[nl:Repeterende breuk#Repeterende negens]]<br />
[[ja:0.999...]]<br />
[[no:0,999...]]<br />
[[nov:0.999...]]<br />
[[uz:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pl:0,(9)]]<br />
[[pt:0,999...]]<br />
[[ro:0,(9)]]<br />
[[ru:0,(9)]]<br />
[[sl:0,999...]]<br />
[[fi:0,999...]]<br />
[[sv:0,999...]]<br />
[[ta:0.999...]]<br />
[[th:0.999...]]<br />
[[tr:0,999...]]<br />
[[vi:0,999...]]<br />
[[yo:0.999...]]<br />
[[zh:0.999…]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith-Normalform&diff=128686427Smith-Normalform2009-10-09T13:50:04Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Step II : Improving the pivot */ Improved the description (no need to apply Bezout a second time, and one gets a 0 for free)</p>
<hr />
<div>In mathematics, the '''Smith normal form''' is a [[normal form]] that can be defined for any matrix (not necessarily square) with entries in a [[principal ideal domain]] (PID). The Smith normal form of a matrix is [[Diagonal matrix|diagonal]], and can be obtained from the original matrix by multiplying on the left and right by [[invertible]] square matrices. In particular, the integers are a PID, so one can always calculate the Smith normal form of an integer matrix. The Smith normal form is very useful for working with finitely generated modules over a PID, and in particular for deducing the structure of a quotient of a [[free module]].<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
Let ''A'' be a nonzero ''m''&times;''n'' matrix over a [[principal ideal domain]] ''R''. There exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha_1 & 0 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & \alpha_2 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & \ddots & & & & 0\\<br />
\vdots & & & \alpha_r & & & \vdots \\<br />
& & & & 0 & & \\<br />
& & & & & \ddots & \\<br />
0 & & & \cdots & & & 0<br />
\end{pmatrix}.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>. This is the Smith normal form of the matrix ''A''. The elements <math>\alpha_i</math> are unique [[up to]] [[associatedness]] and are called the elementary divisors, invariants, or invariant factors.<br />
<br />
== Algorithm==<br />
Our first goal will be to find invertible square matrices ''S'' and ''T'' such that the product ''S A T'' is diagonal. This is the hardest part of the algorithm and once we have achieved diagonality it becomes relatively easy to put the matrix in Smith normal form. Phrased more abstractly, the goal is to show that, thinking of ''A'' as a map from <math>R^n</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''n'') onto <math>R^m</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''m''), there are isomorphisms <math>S:R^m \to R^m</math> and <math>T:R^n \to R^n</math> such that <math>S \cdot A \cdot T</math> has the simple form of a [[diagonal matrix]]. The matrices ''S'' and ''T'' can be found by starting out with identity matrices of the appropriate size, and modifying ''S'' each time a row operation is performed on ''A'' in the algorithm by the same row operation, and similarly modifying ''T'' for each column operation performed. Since row operations are left-multiplications and column operations are right-multiplications, this preserves the invariant <math>A'=S'\cdot A\cdot T'</math> where <math>A',S',T'</math> denote current values and ''A'' denotes the original matrix; eventually the matrices in this invariant become diagonal. Only invertible row and column operations are performed, which ensures that ''S'' and ''T'' remain invertible matrices.<br />
<br />
For ''a'' in ''R'' \ {0}, write δ(''a'') for the number of prime factors of ''a'' (these exist and are unique since any PID is also a [[unique factorization domain]]). In particular, ''R'' is also a [[Bézout domain]], so it is a [[gcd domain]] and the gcd of any two elements satisfies a [[Bézout's identity]].<br />
<br />
To put a matrix into Smith normal form, one can repeatedly apply the following, where ''t'' loops from 1 to ''m''.<br />
<br />
===Step I : Choosing a pivot===<br />
Choose ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> to be the smallest column index of ''A'' with a non-zero entry, starting the search at column index ''j''<sub>''t''-1</sub>+1 if ''t'' &gt; 1.<br />
<br />
We wish to have <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>; if this is the case this step is complete, otherwise there is by assumption some ''k'' with <math>a_{k,j_t} \neq 0</math>, and we can exchange rows <math>t</math> and ''k'', thereby obtaining <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>.<br />
<br />
Our chosen pivot is now at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>).<br />
<br />
===Step II : Improving the pivot===<br />
If there is an entry at position (''k'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) such that <math>a_{t,j_t} \nmid a_{k,j_t}</math>, then, letting <math>\beta =\gcd\left(a_{t,j_t}, a_{k,j_t}\right)</math>, we know by the Bézout property that there exist σ, τ in ''R'' such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
a_{t,j_t} \cdot \sigma + a_{k,j_t} \cdot \tau=\beta.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
By left-multiplication with an appropriate invertible matrix ''L'', it can be achieved that row ''t'' of the matrix product is the sum of σ times the original row ''t'' and τ times the original row ''k'', that row ''k'' of the product is another linear combination of those original rows, and that all other rows are unchanged. Explicitly, if σ and τ satisfy the above equation, then for <math>\alpha=a_{t,j_t}/\beta</math> and <math>\gamma=a_{k,j_t}/\beta</math> (which divisions are possible by the definition of β) one has<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\sigma\cdot \alpha + \tau \cdot \gamma=1,<br />
</math><br />
<br />
so that the matrix<br />
<br />
:<math> L_0=<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\sigma & \tau \\<br />
-\gamma & \alpha \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
is invertible, with inverse<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha & -\tau \\<br />
\gamma & \sigma \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
.</math><br />
<br />
Now ''L'' can be obtained by fitting <math>L_0</math> into rows and columns ''t'' and ''k'' of the identity matrix. By construction the matrix obtained after left-multiplying by ''L'' has entry β at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) (and due to our choice of α and γ it also has an entry 0 at position (''k'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>), which is useful though not essential for the algorithm). This new entry β divides the entry <math>a_{t,j_t}</math> that was there before, and so in particular <math>\delta(\beta) < \delta(a_{t,j_t})</math>; therefore repeating these steps must eventually terminate. One ends up with a matrix having an entry at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) that divides all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub>.<br />
<br />
===Step III : Eliminating entries===<br />
Finally, adding appropriate multiples of row ''t'', it can be achieved that all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> except for that at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) are zero. This can be achieved by left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix. However, to make the matrix fully diagonal we need to eliminate nonzero entries on the row of position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) as well. This can be achieved by repeating the steps in Step II for columns instead of rows, and using multiplication on the right. In general this will result in the zero entries from the prior application of Step III becoming nonzero again.<br />
<br />
However, notice that the [[ideal (ring theory)|ideals]] generated by the elements at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) form an [[ascending chain condition|ascending chain]], because entries from a later step always divide entries from a previous step. Therefore, since ''R'' is a [[Noetherian ring]] (it is a [[principal ideal domain|PID]]), the ideals eventually become stationary and do not change. This means that at some stage after Step II has been applied, the entry at (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) will divide all nonzero row or column entries before applying any more steps in Step II. Then we can eliminate entries in the row or column with nonzero entries while preserving the zeros in the already-zero row or column. At this point, only the block of ''A'' to the lower right of (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) needs to be diagonalized, and conceptually the algorithm can be applied recursively, treating this block as a separate matrix. In other words, we can increment ''t'' by one and go back to Step I.<br />
<br />
===Final step===<br />
Applying the steps described above to the remaining non-zero columns of the resulting matrix (if any), we get an <math>m \times n</math>-matrix with column indices <math>j_1 < \ldots < j_r</math> where <math>r \le \min(m,n)</math>. The matrix entries <math>(l,j_l)</math> are non-zero, and every other entry is zero.<br />
<br />
Now we can move the null columns of this matrix to the right, so that the nonzero entries are on positions <math>(i,i)</math> for <math>1 \le i\le r</math>. For short, set <math>\alpha_i</math> for the element at position <math>(i,i)</math>.<br />
<br />
The condition of divisibility of diagonal entries might not be satisfied. For any index <math>i<r</math> for which <math>\alpha_i\nmid\alpha_{i+1}</math>, one can repair this shortcoming by operations on rows and columns <math>i</math> and <math>i+1</math> only: first add column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math> to get an entry <math>\alpha_{i+1}</math> in column ''i'' without disturbing the entry <math>\alpha_i</math> at position <math>(i,i)</math>, and then apply a row operation to make the entry at position <math>(i,i)</math> equal to <math>\beta=\gcd(\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1})</math> as in Step&nbsp;II; finally proceed as in Step&nbsp;III to make the matrix diagonal again. Since the new entry at position <math>(i+1,i+1)</math> is a linear combination of the original <math>\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1}</math>, it is divisible by β.<br />
<br />
The value <math>\delta(\alpha_1)+\cdots+\delta(\alpha_r)</math> does not change by the above operation (it is δ of the determinant of the upper <math>r\times r</math> submatrix), whence that operation does diminish (by moving prime factors to the right) the value of<br />
:<math>\sum_{j=1}^r(r-j)\delta(\alpha_j).</math><br />
So after finitely many applications of this operation no further application is possible, which means that we have obtained <math>\alpha_1\mid\alpha_2\mid\cdots\mid\alpha_r</math> as desired.<br />
<br />
Since all row and column manipulations involved in the process are invertible, this shows that there exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' satisfies the definition of a Smith normal form. In particular, this shows that the Smith normal form exists, which was assumed without proof in the definition.<br />
<br />
== Applications ==<br />
<br />
The Smith normal form is useful for computing the [[homology (mathematics)|homology]] of a [[chain complex]] when the chain modules of the chain complex are [[finitely generated]]. For instance, in [[topology]], it can be used to compute the homology of a [[simplicial complex]] or [[CW complex]] over the integers, because the boundary maps in such a complex are just integer matrices. It can also be used to prove the well known [[structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain]].<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
As an example, we will find the Smith normal form of the following matrix over the integers.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 4 & 4 \\<br />
-6 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
10 & -4 & -16<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The following matrices are the intermediate steps as the algorithm is applied to the above matrix.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
-6 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
10 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -6 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 0 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
So the Smith normal form is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the elementary divisors are 2, 6 and 12.<br />
<br />
== Similarity ==<br />
The Smith normal form can be used to determine whether or not matrices with entries over a common field are [[Similar matrix|similar]]. Specifically two matrices ''A'' and ''B'' are similar if and only if the [[characteristic matrix|characteristic matrices]] <math>xI-A \mbox{ and } xI-B</math> have the same Smith normal form.<br />
<br />
For example, with<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
A & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 2 \\<br />
0 & 1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-A) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
B & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
3 & -4 \\<br />
1 & -1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-B) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
C & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
1 & 2<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-C) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)(x-2)<br />
\end{bmatrix}.<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
''A'' and ''B'' are similar because the Smith normal form of their characteristic matrices match, but are not similar to ''C'' because the Smith normal form of the characteristic matrices do not match.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [[Canonical form]]<br />
* [[Henry John Stephen Smith]] (1826 &ndash; 1883), whose name is attached to the Smith normal form<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* Thomas Heye's GFDL [http://planetmath.org/?method=l2h&from=objects&name=GausssAlgorithmForPrincipalIdealDomains&op=getobj Smith normal form article at PlanetMath]<br />
* GFDL [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ExampleOfSmithNormalForm.html Example of Smith normal form at PlanetMath]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matrix theory]]<br />
[[Category:Matrix normal forms]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith-Normalform&diff=128686426Smith-Normalform2009-10-08T09:23:40Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Final step */ corrected: δ(αi) = δ(αi + 1) does not imply they are either associated or relatively prime</p>
<hr />
<div>In mathematics, the '''Smith normal form''' is a [[normal form]] that can be defined for any matrix (not necessarily square) with entries in a [[principal ideal domain]] (PID). The Smith normal form of a matrix is [[Diagonal matrix|diagonal]], and can be obtained from the original matrix by multiplying on the left and right by [[invertible]] square matrices. In particular, the integers are a PID, so one can always calculate the Smith normal form of an integer matrix. The Smith normal form is very useful for working with finitely generated modules over a PID, and in particular for deducing the structure of a quotient of a [[free module]].<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
Let ''A'' be a nonzero ''m''&times;''n'' matrix over a [[principal ideal domain]] ''R''. There exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha_1 & 0 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & \alpha_2 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & \ddots & & & & 0\\<br />
\vdots & & & \alpha_r & & & \vdots \\<br />
& & & & 0 & & \\<br />
& & & & & \ddots & \\<br />
0 & & & \cdots & & & 0<br />
\end{pmatrix}.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>. This is the Smith normal form of the matrix ''A''. The elements <math>\alpha_i</math> are unique [[up to]] [[associatedness]] and are called the elementary divisors, invariants, or invariant factors.<br />
<br />
== Algorithm==<br />
Our first goal will be to find invertible square matrices ''S'' and ''T'' such that the product ''S A T'' is diagonal. This is the hardest part of the algorithm and once we have achieved diagonality it becomes relatively easy to put the matrix in Smith normal form. Phrased more abstractly, the goal is to show that, thinking of ''A'' as a map from <math>R^n</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''n'') onto <math>R^m</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''m''), there are isomorphisms <math>S:R^m \to R^m</math> and <math>T:R^n \to R^n</math> such that <math>S \cdot A \cdot T</math> has the simple form of a [[diagonal matrix]]. The matrices ''S'' and ''T'' can be found by starting out with identity matrices of the appropriate size, and modifying ''S'' each time a row operation is performed on ''A'' in the algorithm by the same row operation, and similarly modifying ''T'' for each column operation performed. Since row operations are left-multiplications and column operations are right-multiplications, this preserves the invariant <math>A'=S'\cdot A\cdot T'</math> where <math>A',S',T'</math> denote current values and ''A'' denotes the original matrix; eventually the matrices in this invariant become diagonal. Only invertible row and column operations are performed, which ensures that ''S'' and ''T'' remain invertible matrices.<br />
<br />
For ''a'' in ''R'' \ {0}, write δ(''a'') for the number of prime factors of ''a'' (these exist and are unique since any PID is also a [[unique factorization domain]]). In particular, ''R'' is also a [[Bézout domain]], so it is a [[gcd domain]] and the gcd of any two elements satisfies a [[Bézout's identity]].<br />
<br />
To put a matrix into Smith normal form, one can repeatedly apply the following, where ''t'' loops from 1 to ''m''.<br />
<br />
===Step I : Choosing a pivot===<br />
Choose ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> to be the smallest column index of ''A'' with a non-zero entry, starting the search at column index ''j''<sub>''t''-1</sub>+1 if ''t'' &gt; 1.<br />
<br />
We wish to have <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>; if this is the case this step is complete, otherwise there is by assumption some ''k'' with <math>a_{k,j_t} \neq 0</math>, and we can exchange rows <math>t</math> and ''k'', thereby obtaining <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>.<br />
<br />
Our chosen pivot is now at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>).<br />
<br />
===Step II : Improving the pivot===<br />
If there is an entry at position (''k'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) such that <math>a_{t,j_t} \nmid a_{k,j_t}</math>, then, letting <math>\beta =\gcd\left(a_{t,j_t}, a_{k,j_t}\right)</math>, we know by the Bézout property that there exist σ, τ in ''R'' such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
a_{t,j_t} \cdot \sigma + a_{k,j_t} \cdot \tau=\beta.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
By left-multiplication with an appropriate invertible matrix ''L'', it can be achieved that row ''t'' of the matrix product is the sum of σ times the original row ''t'' and τ times the original row ''k'', that row ''k'' of the product is another linear combination of those original rows, and that all other rows are unchanged. Explicitly, if σ and τ satisfy the above equation, they must be [[relatively prime]]; so, by the same Bézout property, there exist α and γ such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\sigma\cdot \alpha + \tau \cdot \gamma=1,<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and then the matrix<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\sigma & \tau \\<br />
-\gamma & \alpha \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
is invertible, with inverse<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha & -\tau \\<br />
\gamma & \sigma \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
.</math><br />
<br />
Now ''L'' can be obtained by fitting this first matrix into rows and columns ''t'' and ''k'' of the identity matrix. By construction the entry β at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) after the left-multiplying by ''L'' divides the entry <math>a_{t,j_t}</math> that was there before, and so<br />
<math>\delta(\beta) < \delta(a_{t,j_t})</math>. Therefore repeating these steps must eventually terminate, and one ends up with a matrix having an entry at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) that divides all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub>.<br />
<br />
===Step III : Eliminating entries===<br />
Finally, adding appropriate multiples of row ''t'', it can be achieved that all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> except for that at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) are zero. This can be achieved by left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix. However, to make the matrix fully diagonal we need to eliminate nonzero entries on the row of position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) as well. This can be achieved by repeating the steps in Step II for columns instead of rows, and using multiplication on the right. In general this will result in the zero entries from the prior application of Step III becoming nonzero again.<br />
<br />
However, notice that the [[ideal (ring theory)|ideals]] generated by the elements at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) form an [[ascending chain condition|ascending chain]], because entries from a later step always divide entries from a previous step. Therefore, since ''R'' is a [[Noetherian ring]] (it is a [[principal ideal domain|PID]]), the ideals eventually become stationary and do not change. This means that at some stage after Step II has been applied, the entry at (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) will divide all nonzero row or column entries before applying any more steps in Step II. Then we can eliminate entries in the row or column with nonzero entries while preserving the zeros in the already-zero row or column. At this point, only the block of ''A'' to the lower right of (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) needs to be diagonalized, and conceptually the algorithm can be applied recursively, treating this block as a separate matrix. In other words, we can increment ''t'' by one and go back to Step I.<br />
<br />
===Final step===<br />
Applying the steps described above to the remaining non-zero columns of the resulting matrix (if any), we get an <math>m \times n</math>-matrix with column indices <math>j_1 < \ldots < j_r</math> where <math>r \le \min(m,n)</math>. The matrix entries <math>(l,j_l)</math> are non-zero, and every other entry is zero.<br />
<br />
Now we can move the null columns of this matrix to the right, so that the nonzero entries are on positions <math>(i,i)</math> for <math>1 \le i\le r</math>. For short, set <math>\alpha_i</math> for the element at position <math>(i,i)</math>.<br />
<br />
The condition of divisibility of diagonal entries might not be satisfied. For any index <math>i<r</math> for which <math>\alpha_i\nmid\alpha_{i+1}</math>, one can repair this shortcoming by operations on rows and columns <math>i</math> and <math>i+1</math> only: first add column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math> to get an entry <math>\alpha_{i+1}</math> in column ''i'' without disturbing the entry <math>\alpha_i</math> at position <math>(i,i)</math>, and then apply a row operation to make the entry at position <math>(i,i)</math> equal to <math>\beta=\gcd(\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1})</math> as in Step&nbsp;II; finally proceed as in Step&nbsp;III to make the matrix diagonal again. Since the new entry at position <math>(i+1,i+1)</math> is a linear combination of the original <math>\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1}</math>, it is divisible by β.<br />
<br />
The value <math>\delta(\alpha_1)+\cdots+\delta(\alpha_r)</math> does not change by the above operation (it is δ of the determinant of the upper <math>r\times r</math> submatrix), whence that operation does diminish (by moving prime factors to the right) the value of<br />
:<math>\sum_{j=1}^r(r-j)\delta(\alpha_j).</math><br />
So after finitely many applications of this operation no further application is possible, which means that we have obtained <math>\alpha_1\mid\alpha_2\mid\cdots\mid\alpha_r</math> as desired.<br />
<br />
Since all row and column manipulations involved in the process are invertible, this shows that there exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' satisfies the definition of a Smith normal form. In particular, this shows that the Smith normal form exists, which was assumed without proof in the definition.<br />
<br />
== Applications ==<br />
<br />
The Smith normal form is useful for computing the [[homology (mathematics)|homology]] of a [[chain complex]] when the chain modules of the chain complex are [[finitely generated]]. For instance, in [[topology]], it can be used to compute the homology of a [[simplicial complex]] or [[CW complex]] over the integers, because the boundary maps in such a complex are just integer matrices. It can also be used to prove the well known [[structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain]].<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
As an example, we will find the Smith normal form of the following matrix over the integers.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 4 & 4 \\<br />
-6 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
10 & -4 & -16<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The following matrices are the intermediate steps as the algorithm is applied to the above matrix.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
-6 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
10 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -6 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 0 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
So the Smith normal form is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the elementary divisors are 2, 6 and 12.<br />
<br />
== Similarity ==<br />
The Smith normal form can be used to determine whether or not matrices with entries over a common field are [[Similar matrix|similar]]. Specifically two matrices ''A'' and ''B'' are similar if and only if the [[characteristic matrix|characteristic matrices]] <math>xI-A \mbox{ and } xI-B</math> have the same Smith normal form.<br />
<br />
For example, with<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
A & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 2 \\<br />
0 & 1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-A) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
B & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
3 & -4 \\<br />
1 & -1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-B) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
C & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
1 & 2<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-C) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)(x-2)<br />
\end{bmatrix}.<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
''A'' and ''B'' are similar because the Smith normal form of their characteristic matrices match, but are not similar to ''C'' because the Smith normal form of the characteristic matrices do not match.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [[Canonical form]]<br />
* [[Henry John Stephen Smith]] (1826 &ndash; 1883), whose name is attached to the Smith normal form<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* Thomas Heye's GFDL [http://planetmath.org/?method=l2h&from=objects&name=GausssAlgorithmForPrincipalIdealDomains&op=getobj Smith normal form article at PlanetMath]<br />
* GFDL [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ExampleOfSmithNormalForm.html Example of Smith normal form at PlanetMath]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matrix theory]]<br />
[[Category:Matrix normal forms]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith-Normalform&diff=128686425Smith-Normalform2009-10-08T08:34:22Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Algorithm */ explained computation of S and T more explicitly</p>
<hr />
<div>In mathematics, the '''Smith normal form''' is a [[normal form]] that can be defined for any matrix (not necessarily square) with entries in a [[principal ideal domain]] (PID). The Smith normal form of a matrix is [[Diagonal matrix|diagonal]], and can be obtained from the original matrix by multiplying on the left and right by [[invertible]] square matrices. In particular, the integers are a PID, so one can always calculate the Smith normal form of an integer matrix. The Smith normal form is very useful for working with finitely generated modules over a PID, and in particular for deducing the structure of a quotient of a [[free module]].<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
Let ''A'' be a nonzero ''m''&times;''n'' matrix over a [[principal ideal domain]] ''R''. There exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha_1 & 0 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & \alpha_2 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & \ddots & & & & 0\\<br />
\vdots & & & \alpha_r & & & \vdots \\<br />
& & & & 0 & & \\<br />
& & & & & \ddots & \\<br />
0 & & & \cdots & & & 0<br />
\end{pmatrix}.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>. This is the Smith normal form of the matrix ''A''. The elements <math>\alpha_i</math> are unique [[up to]] [[associatedness]] and are called the elementary divisors, invariants, or invariant factors.<br />
<br />
== Algorithm==<br />
Our first goal will be to find invertible square matrices ''S'' and ''T'' such that the product ''S A T'' is diagonal. This is the hardest part of the algorithm and once we have achieved diagonality it becomes relatively easy to put the matrix in Smith normal form. Phrased more abstractly, the goal is to show that, thinking of ''A'' as a map from <math>R^n</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''n'') onto <math>R^m</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''m''), there are isomorphisms <math>S:R^m \to R^m</math> and <math>T:R^n \to R^n</math> such that <math>S \cdot A \cdot T</math> has the simple form of a [[diagonal matrix]]. The matrices ''S'' and ''T'' can be found by starting out with identity matrices of the appropriate size, and modifying ''S'' each time a row operation is performed on ''A'' in the algorithm by the same row operation, and similarly modifying ''T'' for each column operation performed. Since row operations are left-multiplications and column operations are right-multiplications, this preserves the invariant <math>A'=S'\cdot A\cdot T'</math> where <math>A',S',T'</math> denote current values and ''A'' denotes the original matrix; eventually the matrices in this invariant become diagonal. Only invertible row and column operations are performed, which ensures that ''S'' and ''T'' remain invertible matrices.<br />
<br />
For ''a'' in ''R'' \ {0}, write δ(''a'') for the number of prime factors of ''a'' (these exist and are unique since any PID is also a [[unique factorization domain]]). In particular, ''R'' is also a [[Bézout domain]], so it is a [[gcd domain]] and the gcd of any two elements satisfies a [[Bézout's identity]].<br />
<br />
To put a matrix into Smith normal form, one can repeatedly apply the following, where ''t'' loops from 1 to ''m''.<br />
<br />
===Step I : Choosing a pivot===<br />
Choose ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> to be the smallest column index of ''A'' with a non-zero entry, starting the search at column index ''j''<sub>''t''-1</sub>+1 if ''t'' &gt; 1.<br />
<br />
We wish to have <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>; if this is the case this step is complete, otherwise there is by assumption some ''k'' with <math>a_{k,j_t} \neq 0</math>, and we can exchange rows <math>t</math> and ''k'', thereby obtaining <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>.<br />
<br />
Our chosen pivot is now at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>).<br />
<br />
===Step II : Improving the pivot===<br />
If there is an entry at position (''k'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) such that <math>a_{t,j_t} \nmid a_{k,j_t}</math>, then, letting <math>\beta =\gcd\left(a_{t,j_t}, a_{k,j_t}\right)</math>, we know by the Bézout property that there exist σ, τ in ''R'' such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
a_{t,j_t} \cdot \sigma + a_{k,j_t} \cdot \tau=\beta.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
By left-multiplication with an appropriate invertible matrix ''L'', it can be achieved that row ''t'' of the matrix product is the sum of σ times the original row ''t'' and τ times the original row ''k'', that row ''k'' of the product is another linear combination of those original rows, and that all other rows are unchanged. Explicitly, if σ and τ satisfy the above equation, they must be [[relatively prime]]; so, by the same Bézout property, there exist α and γ such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\sigma\cdot \alpha + \tau \cdot \gamma=1,<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and then the matrix<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\sigma & \tau \\<br />
-\gamma & \alpha \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
is invertible, with inverse<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha & -\tau \\<br />
\gamma & \sigma \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
.</math><br />
<br />
Now ''L'' can be obtained by fitting this first matrix into rows and columns ''t'' and ''k'' of the identity matrix. By construction the entry β at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) after the left-multiplying by ''L'' divides the entry <math>a_{t,j_t}</math> that was there before, and so<br />
<math>\delta(\beta) < \delta(a_{t,j_t})</math>. Therefore repeating these steps must eventually terminate, and one ends up with a matrix having an entry at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) that divides all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub>.<br />
<br />
===Step III : Eliminating entries===<br />
Finally, adding appropriate multiples of row ''t'', it can be achieved that all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> except for that at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) are zero. This can be achieved by left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix. However, to make the matrix fully diagonal we need to eliminate nonzero entries on the row of position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) as well. This can be achieved by repeating the steps in Step II for columns instead of rows, and using multiplication on the right. In general this will result in the zero entries from the prior application of Step III becoming nonzero again.<br />
<br />
However, notice that the [[ideal (ring theory)|ideals]] generated by the elements at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) form an [[ascending chain condition|ascending chain]], because entries from a later step always divide entries from a previous step. Therefore, since ''R'' is a [[Noetherian ring]] (it is a [[principal ideal domain|PID]]), the ideals eventually become stationary and do not change. This means that at some stage after Step II has been applied, the entry at (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) will divide all nonzero row or column entries before applying any more steps in Step II. Then we can eliminate entries in the row or column with nonzero entries while preserving the zeros in the already-zero row or column. At this point, only the block of ''A'' to the lower right of (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) needs to be diagonalized, and conceptually the algorithm can be applied recursively, treating this block as a separate matrix. In other words, we can increment ''t'' by one and go back to Step I.<br />
<br />
===Final step===<br />
Applying the steps described above to the remaining non-zero columns of the resulting matrix (if any), we get an <math>m \times n</math>-matrix with column indices <math>j_1 < \ldots < j_r</math> where <math>r \le \min(m,n)</math>. The matrix entries <math>(l,j_l)</math> are non-zero, and every other entry is zero.<br />
<br />
Now we can re-order the columns of this matrix so that elements on positions <math>(i,i)</math> for <math>1 \le i\le r</math> are nonzero and <math>\delta(a_{ii}) \le \delta(a_{i+1,i+1})</math> for <math>1 \le i < r</math>; and all columns right of the <math>r</math>-th column (if present) are zero. For short, set <math>\alpha_i</math> for the element at position <math>(i,i)</math>. <math>\delta</math> has non-negative integer values; so <math>\delta(\alpha_1)=0</math> is equivalent to <math>\alpha_1</math> being a unit of <math>R</math>.<br />
<br />
<math>\delta(\alpha_i) =\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> can either happen if <math>\alpha_i</math> and <math>\alpha_{i+1}</math> differ by a unit factor, or if they are relative prime. In the latter case one can add column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math> (which doesn't change <math>\alpha_i)</math> and then apply appropriate row manipulations to get <math>\alpha_i=1</math>.<br />
And for <math>\delta(\alpha_i)<\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> and <math>\alpha_i \nmid<br />
\alpha_{i+1}</math> one can apply Step II after adding column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math>.<br />
<br />
This diminishes the minimum <math>\delta</math>-values for non-zero entries of the matrix, and by reordering columns etc. we end up with a matrix whose diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>.<br />
<br />
Since all row and column manipulations involved in the process are invertible, this shows that there exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' satisfies the definition of a Smith normal form. In particular, this shows that the Smith normal form exists, which was assumed without proof in the definition.<br />
<br />
== Applications ==<br />
<br />
The Smith normal form is useful for computing the [[homology (mathematics)|homology]] of a [[chain complex]] when the chain modules of the chain complex are [[finitely generated]]. For instance, in [[topology]], it can be used to compute the homology of a [[simplicial complex]] or [[CW complex]] over the integers, because the boundary maps in such a complex are just integer matrices. It can also be used to prove the well known [[structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain]].<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
As an example, we will find the Smith normal form of the following matrix over the integers.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 4 & 4 \\<br />
-6 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
10 & -4 & -16<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The following matrices are the intermediate steps as the algorithm is applied to the above matrix.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
-6 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
10 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -6 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 0 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
So the Smith normal form is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the elementary divisors are 2, 6 and 12.<br />
<br />
== Similarity ==<br />
The Smith normal form can be used to determine whether or not matrices with entries over a common field are [[Similar matrix|similar]]. Specifically two matrices ''A'' and ''B'' are similar if and only if the [[characteristic matrix|characteristic matrices]] <math>xI-A \mbox{ and } xI-B</math> have the same Smith normal form.<br />
<br />
For example, with<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
A & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 2 \\<br />
0 & 1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-A) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
B & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
3 & -4 \\<br />
1 & -1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-B) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
C & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
1 & 2<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-C) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)(x-2)<br />
\end{bmatrix}.<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
''A'' and ''B'' are similar because the Smith normal form of their characteristic matrices match, but are not similar to ''C'' because the Smith normal form of the characteristic matrices do not match.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [[Canonical form]]<br />
* [[Henry John Stephen Smith]] (1826 &ndash; 1883), whose name is attached to the Smith normal form<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* Thomas Heye's GFDL [http://planetmath.org/?method=l2h&from=objects&name=GausssAlgorithmForPrincipalIdealDomains&op=getobj Smith normal form article at PlanetMath]<br />
* GFDL [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ExampleOfSmithNormalForm.html Example of Smith normal form at PlanetMath]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matrix theory]]<br />
[[Category:Matrix normal forms]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith-Normalform&diff=128686422Smith-Normalform2009-09-21T09:16:37Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Final step */ Removed reference to Gauss' algorithm, unrealted to the final step, and which in any case is different from Smith's since it involves row operations only</p>
<hr />
<div>In mathematics, the '''Smith normal form''' is a [[normal form]] that can be defined for any matrix (not necessarily square) with entries in a [[principal ideal domain]] (PID). The Smith normal form of a matrix is [[Diagonal matrix|diagonal]], and can be obtained from the original matrix by multiplying on the left and right by [[invertible]] square matrices. In particular, the integers are a PID, so one can always calculate the Smith normal form of an integer matrix. The Smith normal form is very useful for working with finitely generated modules over a PID, and in particular for deducing the structure of a quotient of a [[free module]].<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
Let ''A'' be a nonzero ''m''&times;''n'' matrix over a [[principal ideal domain]] ''R''. There exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha_1 & 0 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & \alpha_2 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & \ddots & & & & 0\\<br />
\vdots & & & \alpha_r & & & \vdots \\<br />
& & & & 0 & & \\<br />
& & & & & \ddots & \\<br />
0 & & & \cdots & & & 0<br />
\end{pmatrix}.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>. This is the Smith normal form of the matrix ''A''. The elements <math>\alpha_i</math> are unique [[up to]] [[associatedness]] and are called the elementary divisors, invariants, or invariant factors.<br />
<br />
== Algorithm==<br />
Our first goal will be to find invertible square matrices ''S'' and ''T'' such that the product ''S A T'' is diagonal. This is the hardest part of the algorithm and once we have achieved diagonality it becomes relatively easy to put the matrix in Smith normal form. (Note that invertibility of a matrix with entries in ''R'' is the same as saying that its determinant is a unit.) Phrased more abstractly, the goal is to show that, thinking of ''A'' as a map from <math>R^n</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''n'') onto <math>R^m</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''m''), there are isomorphisms <math>S:R^m \to R^m</math> and <math>T:R^n \to R^n</math> such that <math>S \circ A \circ T</math> has the simple form of a [[diagonal matrix]]. The matrices ''S'' and ''T'' will be found by repeatedly applying elementary transformations that replace a row (column) with a linear combination of itself and another row (column).<br />
<br />
For ''a'' in ''R'' \ {0}, write δ(''a'') for the number of prime factors of ''a'' (these exist and are unique since any PID is also a [[unique factorization domain]]). In particular, ''R'' is also a [[Bézout domain]], so it is a [[gcd domain]] and the gcd of any two elements satisfies a [[Bézout's identity]].<br />
<br />
To put a matrix into Smith normal form, one can repeatedly apply the following, where ''t'' loops from 1 to ''m''.<br />
<br />
===Step I : Choosing a pivot===<br />
Choose ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> to be the smallest column index of ''A'' with a non-zero entry, starting the search at column index ''j''<sub>''t''-1</sub>+1 if ''t'' &gt; 1.<br />
<br />
We wish to have <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>; if this is the case this step is complete, otherwise there is by assumption some ''k'' with <math>a_{k,j_t} \neq 0</math>, and we can exchange rows <math>t</math> and ''k'', thereby obtaining <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>.<br />
<br />
Our chosen pivot is now at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>).<br />
<br />
===Step II : Improving the pivot===<br />
If there is an entry at position (''k'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) such that <math>a_{t,j_t} \nmid a_{k,j_t}</math>, then, letting <math>\beta =\gcd\left(a_{t,j_t}, a_{k,j_t}\right)</math>, we know by the Bézout property that there exist σ, τ in ''R'' such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
a_{t,j_t} \cdot \sigma + a_{k,j_t} \cdot \tau=\beta.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
By left-multiplication with an appropriate invertible matrix ''L'', it can be achieved that row ''t'' of the matrix product is the sum of σ times the original row ''t'' and τ times the original row ''k'', that row ''k'' of the product is another linear combination of those original rows, and that all other rows are unchanged. Explicitly, if σ and τ satisfy the above equation, they must be [[relatively prime]]; so, by the same Bézout property, there exist α and γ such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\sigma\cdot \alpha + \tau \cdot \gamma=1,<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and then the matrix<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\sigma & \tau \\<br />
-\gamma & \alpha \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
is invertible, with inverse<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha & -\tau \\<br />
\gamma & \sigma \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
.</math><br />
<br />
Now ''L'' can be obtained by fitting this first matrix into rows and columns ''t'' and ''k'' of the identity matrix. By construction the entry β at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) after the left-multiplying by ''L'' divides the entry <math>a_{t,j_t}</math> that was there before, and so<br />
<math>\delta(\beta) < \delta(a_{t,j_t})</math>. Therefore repeating these steps must eventually terminate, and one ends up with a matrix having an entry at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) that divides all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub>.<br />
<br />
===Step III : Eliminating entries===<br />
Finally, adding appropriate multiples of row ''t'', it can be achieved that all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> except for that at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) are zero. This can be achieved by left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix. However, to make the matrix fully diagonal we need to eliminate nonzero entries on the row of position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) as well. This can be achieved by repeating the steps in Step II for columns instead of rows, and using multiplication on the right. In general this will result in the zero entries from the prior application of Step III becoming nonzero again.<br />
<br />
However, notice that the [[ideals]] generated by the elements at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) form an [[ascending chain]], because entries from a later step always divide entries from a previous step. Therefore, since ''R'' is a [[Noetherian ring]] (it is a [[principal ideal domain|PID]]), the ideals eventually become stationary and do not change. This means that at some stage after Step II has been applied, the entry at (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) will divide all nonzero row or column entries before applying any more steps in Step II. Then we can eliminate entries in the row or column with nonzero entries while preserving the zeros in the already-zero row or column. At this point, only the block of ''A'' to the lower right of (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) needs to be diagonalized, and conceptually the algorithm can be applied recursively, treating this block as a separate matrix. In other words, we can increment ''t'' by one and go back to Step I.<br />
<br />
===Final step===<br />
Applying the steps described above to the remaining non-zero columns of the resulting matrix (if any), we get an <math>m \times n</math>-matrix with column indices <math>j_1 < \ldots < j_r</math> where <math>r \le \min(m,n)</math>. The matrix entries <math>(l,j_l)</math> are non-zero, and every other entry is zero.<br />
<br />
Now we can re-order the columns of this matrix so that elements on positions <math>(i,i)</math> for <math>1 \le i\le r</math> are nonzero and <math>\delta(a_{ii}) \le \delta(a_{i+1,i+1})</math> for <math>1 \le i < r</math>; and all columns right of the <math>r</math>-th column (if present) are zero. For short, set <math>\alpha_i</math> for the element at position <math>(i,i)</math>. <math>\delta</math> has non-negative integer values; so <math>\delta(\alpha_1)=0</math> is equivalent to <math>\alpha_1</math> being a unit of <math>R</math>.<br />
<br />
<math>\delta(\alpha_i) =\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> can either happen if <math>\alpha_i</math> and <math>\alpha_{i+1}</math> differ by a unit factor, or if they are relative prime. In the latter case one can add column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math> (which doesn't change <math>\alpha_i)</math> and then apply appropriate row manipulations to get <math>\alpha_i=1</math>.<br />
And for <math>\delta(\alpha_i)<\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> and <math>\alpha_i \nmid<br />
\alpha_{i+1}</math> one can apply Step II after adding column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math>.<br />
<br />
This diminishes the minimum <math>\delta</math>-values for non-zero entries of the matrix, and by reordering columns etc. we end up with a matrix whose diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>.<br />
<br />
Since all row and column manipulations involved in the process are invertible, this shows that there exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' satisfies the definition of a Smith normal form. In particular, this shows that the Smith normal form exists, which was assumed without proof in the definition.<br />
<br />
== Applications ==<br />
<br />
The Smith normal form is useful for computing the [[homology (mathematics)|homology]] of a [[chain complex]] when the chain modules of the chain complex are [[finitely generated]]. For instance, in [[topology]], it can be used to compute the homology of a [[simplicial complex]] or [[CW complex]] over the integers, because the boundary maps in such a complex are just integer matrices. It can also be used to prove the well known [[structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain]].<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
As an example, we will find the Smith normal form of the following matrix over the integers.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 4 & 4 \\<br />
-6 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
10 & -4 & -16<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The following matrices are the intermediate steps as the algorithm is applied to the above matrix.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
-6 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
10 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -6 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 0 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
So the Smith normal form is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the elementary divisors are 2, 6 and 12.<br />
<br />
== Similarity ==<br />
The Smith normal form can be used to determine whether or not matrices with entries over a common field are [[Similar matrix|similar]]. Specifically two matrices ''A'' and ''B'' are similar if and only if the [[characteristic matrix|characteristic matrices]] <math>xI-A \mbox{ and } xI-B</math> have the same Smith normal form.<br />
<br />
For example, with<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
A & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 2 \\<br />
0 & 1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-A) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
B & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
3 & -4 \\<br />
1 & -1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-B) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
C & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
1 & 2<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-C) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)(x-2)<br />
\end{bmatrix}.<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
''A'' and ''B'' are similar because the Smith normal form of their characteristic matrices match, but are not similar to ''C'' because the Smith normal form of the characteristic matrices do not match.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [[Canonical form]]<br />
* [[Henry John Stephen Smith]] (1826 &ndash; 1883), whose name is attached to the Smith normal form<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* Thomas Heye's GFDL [http://planetmath.org/?method=l2h&from=objects&name=GausssAlgorithmForPrincipalIdealDomains&op=getobj Smith normal form article at PlanetMath]<br />
* GFDL [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ExampleOfSmithNormalForm.html Example of Smith normal form at PlanetMath]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matrix theory]]<br />
[[Category:Matrix normal forms]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith-Normalform&diff=128686421Smith-Normalform2009-09-21T09:06:35Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Step II : Improving the pivot */ inserted an omitted space</p>
<hr />
<div>In mathematics, the '''Smith normal form''' is a [[normal form]] that can be defined for any matrix (not necessarily square) with entries in a [[principal ideal domain]] (PID). The Smith normal form of a matrix is [[Diagonal matrix|diagonal]], and can be obtained from the original matrix by multiplying on the left and right by [[invertible]] square matrices. In particular, the integers are a PID, so one can always calculate the Smith normal form of an integer matrix. The Smith normal form is very useful for working with finitely generated modules over a PID, and in particular for deducing the structure of a quotient of a [[free module]].<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
Let ''A'' be a nonzero ''m''&times;''n'' matrix over a [[principal ideal domain]] ''R''. There exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha_1 & 0 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & \alpha_2 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & \ddots & & & & 0\\<br />
\vdots & & & \alpha_r & & & \vdots \\<br />
& & & & 0 & & \\<br />
& & & & & \ddots & \\<br />
0 & & & \cdots & & & 0<br />
\end{pmatrix}.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>. This is the Smith normal form of the matrix ''A''. The elements <math>\alpha_i</math> are unique [[up to]] [[associatedness]] and are called the elementary divisors, invariants, or invariant factors.<br />
<br />
== Algorithm==<br />
Our first goal will be to find invertible square matrices ''S'' and ''T'' such that the product ''S A T'' is diagonal. This is the hardest part of the algorithm and once we have achieved diagonality it becomes relatively easy to put the matrix in Smith normal form. (Note that invertibility of a matrix with entries in ''R'' is the same as saying that its determinant is a unit.) Phrased more abstractly, the goal is to show that, thinking of ''A'' as a map from <math>R^n</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''n'') onto <math>R^m</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''m''), there are isomorphisms <math>S:R^m \to R^m</math> and <math>T:R^n \to R^n</math> such that <math>S \circ A \circ T</math> has the simple form of a [[diagonal matrix]]. The matrices ''S'' and ''T'' will be found by repeatedly applying elementary transformations that replace a row (column) with a linear combination of itself and another row (column).<br />
<br />
For ''a'' in ''R'' \ {0}, write δ(''a'') for the number of prime factors of ''a'' (these exist and are unique since any PID is also a [[unique factorization domain]]). In particular, ''R'' is also a [[Bézout domain]], so it is a [[gcd domain]] and the gcd of any two elements satisfies a [[Bézout's identity]].<br />
<br />
To put a matrix into Smith normal form, one can repeatedly apply the following, where ''t'' loops from 1 to ''m''.<br />
<br />
===Step I : Choosing a pivot===<br />
Choose ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> to be the smallest column index of ''A'' with a non-zero entry, starting the search at column index ''j''<sub>''t''-1</sub>+1 if ''t'' &gt; 1.<br />
<br />
We wish to have <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>; if this is the case this step is complete, otherwise there is by assumption some ''k'' with <math>a_{k,j_t} \neq 0</math>, and we can exchange rows <math>t</math> and ''k'', thereby obtaining <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>.<br />
<br />
Our chosen pivot is now at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>).<br />
<br />
===Step II : Improving the pivot===<br />
If there is an entry at position (''k'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) such that <math>a_{t,j_t} \nmid a_{k,j_t}</math>, then, letting <math>\beta =\gcd\left(a_{t,j_t}, a_{k,j_t}\right)</math>, we know by the Bézout property that there exist σ, τ in ''R'' such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
a_{t,j_t} \cdot \sigma + a_{k,j_t} \cdot \tau=\beta.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
By left-multiplication with an appropriate invertible matrix ''L'', it can be achieved that row ''t'' of the matrix product is the sum of σ times the original row ''t'' and τ times the original row ''k'', that row ''k'' of the product is another linear combination of those original rows, and that all other rows are unchanged. Explicitly, if σ and τ satisfy the above equation, they must be [[relatively prime]]; so, by the same Bézout property, there exist α and γ such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\sigma\cdot \alpha + \tau \cdot \gamma=1,<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and then the matrix<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\sigma & \tau \\<br />
-\gamma & \alpha \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
is invertible, with inverse<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha & -\tau \\<br />
\gamma & \sigma \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
.</math><br />
<br />
Now ''L'' can be obtained by fitting this first matrix into rows and columns ''t'' and ''k'' of the identity matrix. By construction the entry β at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) after the left-multiplying by ''L'' divides the entry <math>a_{t,j_t}</math> that was there before, and so<br />
<math>\delta(\beta) < \delta(a_{t,j_t})</math>. Therefore repeating these steps must eventually terminate, and one ends up with a matrix having an entry at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) that divides all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub>.<br />
<br />
===Step III : Eliminating entries===<br />
Finally, adding appropriate multiples of row ''t'', it can be achieved that all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> except for that at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) are zero. This can be achieved by left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix. However, to make the matrix fully diagonal we need to eliminate nonzero entries on the row of position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) as well. This can be achieved by repeating the steps in Step II for columns instead of rows, and using multiplication on the right. In general this will result in the zero entries from the prior application of Step III becoming nonzero again.<br />
<br />
However, notice that the [[ideals]] generated by the elements at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) form an [[ascending chain]], because entries from a later step always divide entries from a previous step. Therefore, since ''R'' is a [[Noetherian ring]] (it is a [[principal ideal domain|PID]]), the ideals eventually become stationary and do not change. This means that at some stage after Step II has been applied, the entry at (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) will divide all nonzero row or column entries before applying any more steps in Step II. Then we can eliminate entries in the row or column with nonzero entries while preserving the zeros in the already-zero row or column. At this point, only the block of ''A'' to the lower right of (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) needs to be diagonalized, and conceptually the algorithm can be applied recursively, treating this block as a separate matrix. In other words, we can increment ''t'' by one and go back to Step I.<br />
<br />
===Final step===<br />
Applying the steps described above to the remaining non-zero columns of the resulting matrix (if any), we get an <math>m \times n</math>-matrix with column indices <math>j_1 < \ldots < j_r</math> where <math>r \le \min(m,n)</math>. The matrix entries <math>(l,j_l)</math> are non-zero, and every other entry is zero. This is a version of the [[Gauss algorithm]] for principal ideal domains which is usually described only for [[commutative law|commutative]] [[field (mathematics)|field]]s.<br />
<br />
Now we can re-order the columns of this matrix so that elements on positions <math>(i,i)</math> for <math>1 \le i\le r</math> are nonzero and <math>\delta(a_{ii}) \le \delta(a_{i+1,i+1})</math> for <math>1 \le i < r</math>; and all columns right of the <math>r</math>-th column (if present) are zero. For short, set <math>\alpha_i</math> for the element at position <math>(i,i)</math>. <math>\delta</math> has non-negative integer values; so <math>\delta(\alpha_1)=0</math> is equivalent to <math>\alpha_1</math> being a unit of <math>R</math>.<br />
<br />
<math>\delta(\alpha_i) =\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> can either happen if <math>\alpha_i</math> and <math>\alpha_{i+1}</math> differ by a unit factor, or if they are relative prime. In the latter case one can add column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math> (which doesn't change <math>\alpha_i)</math> and then apply appropriate row manipulations to get <math>\alpha_i=1</math>.<br />
And for <math>\delta(\alpha_i)<\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> and <math>\alpha_i \nmid<br />
\alpha_{i+1}</math> one can apply Step II after adding column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math>.<br />
<br />
This diminishes the minimum <math>\delta</math>-values for non-zero entries of the matrix, and by reordering columns etc. we end up with a matrix whose diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>.<br />
<br />
Since all row and column manipulations involved in the process are invertible, this shows that there exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' satisfies the definition of a Smith normal form. In particular, this shows that the Smith normal form exists, which was assumed without proof in the definition.<br />
<br />
== Applications ==<br />
<br />
The Smith normal form is useful for computing the [[homology (mathematics)|homology]] of a [[chain complex]] when the chain modules of the chain complex are [[finitely generated]]. For instance, in [[topology]], it can be used to compute the homology of a [[simplicial complex]] or [[CW complex]] over the integers, because the boundary maps in such a complex are just integer matrices. It can also be used to prove the well known [[structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain]].<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
As an example, we will find the Smith normal form of the following matrix over the integers.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 4 & 4 \\<br />
-6 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
10 & -4 & -16<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The following matrices are the intermediate steps as the algorithm is applied to the above matrix.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
-6 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
10 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -6 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 0 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
So the Smith normal form is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the elementary divisors are 2, 6 and 12.<br />
<br />
== Similarity ==<br />
The Smith normal form can be used to determine whether or not matrices with entries over a common field are [[Similar matrix|similar]]. Specifically two matrices ''A'' and ''B'' are similar if and only if the [[characteristic matrix|characteristic matrices]] <math>xI-A \mbox{ and } xI-B</math> have the same Smith normal form.<br />
<br />
For example, with<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
A & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 2 \\<br />
0 & 1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-A) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
B & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
3 & -4 \\<br />
1 & -1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-B) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
C & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
1 & 2<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-C) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)(x-2)<br />
\end{bmatrix}.<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
''A'' and ''B'' are similar because the Smith normal form of their characteristic matrices match, but are not similar to ''C'' because the Smith normal form of the characteristic matrices do not match.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [[Canonical form]]<br />
* [[Henry John Stephen Smith]] (1826 &ndash; 1883), whose name is attached to the Smith normal form<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* Thomas Heye's GFDL [http://planetmath.org/?method=l2h&from=objects&name=GausssAlgorithmForPrincipalIdealDomains&op=getobj Smith normal form article at PlanetMath]<br />
* GFDL [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ExampleOfSmithNormalForm.html Example of Smith normal form at PlanetMath]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matrix theory]]<br />
[[Category:Matrix normal forms]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith-Normalform&diff=128686420Smith-Normalform2009-09-21T09:03:34Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Step II : Improving the pivot */ More clarification of language</p>
<hr />
<div>In mathematics, the '''Smith normal form''' is a [[normal form]] that can be defined for any matrix (not necessarily square) with entries in a [[principal ideal domain]] (PID). The Smith normal form of a matrix is [[Diagonal matrix|diagonal]], and can be obtained from the original matrix by multiplying on the left and right by [[invertible]] square matrices. In particular, the integers are a PID, so one can always calculate the Smith normal form of an integer matrix. The Smith normal form is very useful for working with finitely generated modules over a PID, and in particular for deducing the structure of a quotient of a [[free module]].<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
Let ''A'' be a nonzero ''m''&times;''n'' matrix over a [[principal ideal domain]] ''R''. There exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha_1 & 0 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & \alpha_2 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & \ddots & & & & 0\\<br />
\vdots & & & \alpha_r & & & \vdots \\<br />
& & & & 0 & & \\<br />
& & & & & \ddots & \\<br />
0 & & & \cdots & & & 0<br />
\end{pmatrix}.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>. This is the Smith normal form of the matrix ''A''. The elements <math>\alpha_i</math> are unique [[up to]] [[associatedness]] and are called the elementary divisors, invariants, or invariant factors.<br />
<br />
== Algorithm==<br />
Our first goal will be to find invertible square matrices ''S'' and ''T'' such that the product ''S A T'' is diagonal. This is the hardest part of the algorithm and once we have achieved diagonality it becomes relatively easy to put the matrix in Smith normal form. (Note that invertibility of a matrix with entries in ''R'' is the same as saying that its determinant is a unit.) Phrased more abstractly, the goal is to show that, thinking of ''A'' as a map from <math>R^n</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''n'') onto <math>R^m</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''m''), there are isomorphisms <math>S:R^m \to R^m</math> and <math>T:R^n \to R^n</math> such that <math>S \circ A \circ T</math> has the simple form of a [[diagonal matrix]]. The matrices ''S'' and ''T'' will be found by repeatedly applying elementary transformations that replace a row (column) with a linear combination of itself and another row (column).<br />
<br />
For ''a'' in ''R'' \ {0}, write δ(''a'') for the number of prime factors of ''a'' (these exist and are unique since any PID is also a [[unique factorization domain]]). In particular, ''R'' is also a [[Bézout domain]], so it is a [[gcd domain]] and the gcd of any two elements satisfies a [[Bézout's identity]].<br />
<br />
To put a matrix into Smith normal form, one can repeatedly apply the following, where ''t'' loops from 1 to ''m''.<br />
<br />
===Step I : Choosing a pivot===<br />
Choose ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> to be the smallest column index of ''A'' with a non-zero entry, starting the search at column index ''j''<sub>''t''-1</sub>+1 if ''t'' &gt; 1.<br />
<br />
We wish to have <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>; if this is the case this step is complete, otherwise there is by assumption some ''k'' with <math>a_{k,j_t} \neq 0</math>, and we can exchange rows <math>t</math> and ''k'', thereby obtaining <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>.<br />
<br />
Our chosen pivot is now at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>).<br />
<br />
===Step II : Improving the pivot===<br />
If there is an entry at position (''k'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) such that <math>a_{t,j_t} \nmid a_{k,j_t}</math>, then, letting <math>\beta =\gcd\left(a_{t,j_t}, a_{k,j_t}\right)</math>, we know by the Bézout property that there exist σ, τ in ''R'' such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
a_{t,j_t} \cdot \sigma + a_{k,j_t} \cdot \tau=\beta.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
By left-multiplication with an appropriate invertible matrix ''L'', it can be achieved that row ''t'' of the matrix product is the sum of σ times the original row ''t''and τ times the original row ''k'', that row ''k'' of the product is another linear combination of those original rows, and that all other rows are unchanged. Explicitly, if σ and τ satisfy the above equation, they must be [[relatively prime]]; so, by the same Bézout property, there exist α and γ such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\sigma\cdot \alpha + \tau \cdot \gamma=1,<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and then the matrix<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\sigma & \tau \\<br />
-\gamma & \alpha \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
is invertible, with inverse<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha & -\tau \\<br />
\gamma & \sigma \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
.</math><br />
<br />
Now ''L'' can be obtained by fitting this first matrix into rows and columns ''t'' and ''k'' of the identity matrix. By construction the entry β at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) after the left-multiplying by ''L'' divides the entry <math>a_{t,j_t}</math> that was there before, and so<br />
<math>\delta(\beta) < \delta(a_{t,j_t})</math>. Therefore repeating these steps must eventually terminate, and one ends up with a matrix having an entry at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) that divides all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub>.<br />
<br />
===Step III : Eliminating entries===<br />
Finally, adding appropriate multiples of row ''t'', it can be achieved that all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> except for that at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) are zero. This can be achieved by left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix. However, to make the matrix fully diagonal we need to eliminate nonzero entries on the row of position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) as well. This can be achieved by repeating the steps in Step II for columns instead of rows, and using multiplication on the right. In general this will result in the zero entries from the prior application of Step III becoming nonzero again.<br />
<br />
However, notice that the [[ideals]] generated by the elements at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) form an [[ascending chain]], because entries from a later step always divide entries from a previous step. Therefore, since ''R'' is a [[Noetherian ring]] (it is a [[principal ideal domain|PID]]), the ideals eventually become stationary and do not change. This means that at some stage after Step II has been applied, the entry at (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) will divide all nonzero row or column entries before applying any more steps in Step II. Then we can eliminate entries in the row or column with nonzero entries while preserving the zeros in the already-zero row or column. At this point, only the block of ''A'' to the lower right of (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) needs to be diagonalized, and conceptually the algorithm can be applied recursively, treating this block as a separate matrix. In other words, we can increment ''t'' by one and go back to Step I.<br />
<br />
===Final step===<br />
Applying the steps described above to the remaining non-zero columns of the resulting matrix (if any), we get an <math>m \times n</math>-matrix with column indices <math>j_1 < \ldots < j_r</math> where <math>r \le \min(m,n)</math>. The matrix entries <math>(l,j_l)</math> are non-zero, and every other entry is zero. This is a version of the [[Gauss algorithm]] for principal ideal domains which is usually described only for [[commutative law|commutative]] [[field (mathematics)|field]]s.<br />
<br />
Now we can re-order the columns of this matrix so that elements on positions <math>(i,i)</math> for <math>1 \le i\le r</math> are nonzero and <math>\delta(a_{ii}) \le \delta(a_{i+1,i+1})</math> for <math>1 \le i < r</math>; and all columns right of the <math>r</math>-th column (if present) are zero. For short, set <math>\alpha_i</math> for the element at position <math>(i,i)</math>. <math>\delta</math> has non-negative integer values; so <math>\delta(\alpha_1)=0</math> is equivalent to <math>\alpha_1</math> being a unit of <math>R</math>.<br />
<br />
<math>\delta(\alpha_i) =\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> can either happen if <math>\alpha_i</math> and <math>\alpha_{i+1}</math> differ by a unit factor, or if they are relative prime. In the latter case one can add column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math> (which doesn't change <math>\alpha_i)</math> and then apply appropriate row manipulations to get <math>\alpha_i=1</math>.<br />
And for <math>\delta(\alpha_i)<\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> and <math>\alpha_i \nmid<br />
\alpha_{i+1}</math> one can apply Step II after adding column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math>.<br />
<br />
This diminishes the minimum <math>\delta</math>-values for non-zero entries of the matrix, and by reordering columns etc. we end up with a matrix whose diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>.<br />
<br />
Since all row and column manipulations involved in the process are invertible, this shows that there exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' satisfies the definition of a Smith normal form. In particular, this shows that the Smith normal form exists, which was assumed without proof in the definition.<br />
<br />
== Applications ==<br />
<br />
The Smith normal form is useful for computing the [[homology (mathematics)|homology]] of a [[chain complex]] when the chain modules of the chain complex are [[finitely generated]]. For instance, in [[topology]], it can be used to compute the homology of a [[simplicial complex]] or [[CW complex]] over the integers, because the boundary maps in such a complex are just integer matrices. It can also be used to prove the well known [[structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain]].<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
As an example, we will find the Smith normal form of the following matrix over the integers.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 4 & 4 \\<br />
-6 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
10 & -4 & -16<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The following matrices are the intermediate steps as the algorithm is applied to the above matrix.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
-6 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
10 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -6 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 0 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
So the Smith normal form is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the elementary divisors are 2, 6 and 12.<br />
<br />
== Similarity ==<br />
The Smith normal form can be used to determine whether or not matrices with entries over a common field are [[Similar matrix|similar]]. Specifically two matrices ''A'' and ''B'' are similar if and only if the [[characteristic matrix|characteristic matrices]] <math>xI-A \mbox{ and } xI-B</math> have the same Smith normal form.<br />
<br />
For example, with<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
A & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 2 \\<br />
0 & 1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-A) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
B & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
3 & -4 \\<br />
1 & -1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-B) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
C & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
1 & 2<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-C) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)(x-2)<br />
\end{bmatrix}.<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
''A'' and ''B'' are similar because the Smith normal form of their characteristic matrices match, but are not similar to ''C'' because the Smith normal form of the characteristic matrices do not match.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [[Canonical form]]<br />
* [[Henry John Stephen Smith]] (1826 &ndash; 1883), whose name is attached to the Smith normal form<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* Thomas Heye's GFDL [http://planetmath.org/?method=l2h&from=objects&name=GausssAlgorithmForPrincipalIdealDomains&op=getobj Smith normal form article at PlanetMath]<br />
* GFDL [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ExampleOfSmithNormalForm.html Example of Smith normal form at PlanetMath]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matrix theory]]<br />
[[Category:Matrix normal forms]]</div>Marc van Leeuwenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith-Normalform&diff=128686419Smith-Normalform2009-09-21T08:43:53Z<p>Marc van Leeuwen: /* Step I : Choosing a pivot */ clarified procedure a bit</p>
<hr />
<div>In mathematics, the '''Smith normal form''' is a [[normal form]] that can be defined for any matrix (not necessarily square) with entries in a [[principal ideal domain]] (PID). The Smith normal form of a matrix is [[Diagonal matrix|diagonal]], and can be obtained from the original matrix by multiplying on the left and right by [[invertible]] square matrices. In particular, the integers are a PID, so one can always calculate the Smith normal form of an integer matrix. The Smith normal form is very useful for working with finitely generated modules over a PID, and in particular for deducing the structure of a quotient of a [[free module]].<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
Let ''A'' be a nonzero ''m''&times;''n'' matrix over a [[principal ideal domain]] ''R''. There exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\alpha_1 & 0 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & \alpha_2 & 0 & & \cdots & & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & \ddots & & & & 0\\<br />
\vdots & & & \alpha_r & & & \vdots \\<br />
& & & & 0 & & \\<br />
& & & & & \ddots & \\<br />
0 & & & \cdots & & & 0<br />
\end{pmatrix}.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>. This is the Smith normal form of the matrix ''A''. The elements <math>\alpha_i</math> are unique [[up to]] [[associatedness]] and are called the elementary divisors, invariants, or invariant factors.<br />
<br />
== Algorithm==<br />
Our first goal will be to find invertible square matrices ''S'' and ''T'' such that the product ''S A T'' is diagonal. This is the hardest part of the algorithm and once we have achieved diagonality it becomes relatively easy to put the matrix in Smith normal form. (Note that invertibility of a matrix with entries in ''R'' is the same as saying that its determinant is a unit.) Phrased more abstractly, the goal is to show that, thinking of ''A'' as a map from <math>R^n</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''n'') onto <math>R^m</math> (the free ''R''-[[Module (mathematics)|module]] of rank ''m''), there are isomorphisms <math>S:R^m \to R^m</math> and <math>T:R^n \to R^n</math> such that <math>S \circ A \circ T</math> has the simple form of a [[diagonal matrix]]. The matrices ''S'' and ''T'' will be found by repeatedly applying elementary transformations that replace a row (column) with a linear combination of itself and another row (column).<br />
<br />
For ''a'' in ''R'' \ {0}, write δ(''a'') for the number of prime factors of ''a'' (these exist and are unique since any PID is also a [[unique factorization domain]]). In particular, ''R'' is also a [[Bézout domain]], so it is a [[gcd domain]] and the gcd of any two elements satisfies a [[Bézout's identity]].<br />
<br />
To put a matrix into Smith normal form, one can repeatedly apply the following, where ''t'' loops from 1 to ''m''.<br />
<br />
===Step I : Choosing a pivot===<br />
Choose ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> to be the smallest column index of ''A'' with a non-zero entry, starting the search at column index ''j''<sub>''t''-1</sub>+1 if ''t'' &gt; 1.<br />
<br />
We wish to have <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>; if this is the case this step is complete, otherwise there is by assumption some ''k'' with <math>a_{k,j_t} \neq 0</math>, and we can exchange rows <math>t</math> and ''k'', thereby obtaining <math>a_{t,j_t}\neq0</math>.<br />
<br />
Our chosen pivot is now at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>).<br />
<br />
===Step II : Improving the pivot===<br />
If there is an entry at position (''k'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) such that <math>a_{t,j_t} \nmid a_{k,j_t}</math>, then, letting <math>\beta =\gcd\left(a_{t,j_t}, a_{k,j_t}\right)</math>, we know by the Bézout property that there exist σ, τ in ''R'' such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
a_{t,j_t} \cdot \sigma + a_{k,j_t} \cdot \tau=\beta.<br />
</math><br />
<br />
By left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix ''L'' it can be achieved that row ''t'' of the matrix product is the sum of row ''t'' multiplied by σ and row ''k'' multiplied by τ. (If σ and τ satisfy the above equation, they must be [[relatively prime]]; so, by the same Bézout property, there exist α and γ such that<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\sigma\cdot \alpha + \tau \cdot \gamma=1,<br />
</math><br />
<br />
or in other words, the [[determinant]] of the matrix<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
\sigma & \tau \\<br />
-\gamma & \alpha \\<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
equals one. ''L'' can be obtained by fitting this matrix into the diagonal of the identity matrix at the appropriate positions, depending on the value of ''t'' and ''k''. That ''L'' has determinant one guarantees that ''L'' is invertible over ''R''.) After left-multiplying by ''L'' we get β at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>), where <math>\delta(\beta) < \delta(a_{t,j_t})</math> and β divides <math>a_{t,j_t}</math>. Repeating these steps, one ends up with a matrix having an entry at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) that divides all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub>.<br />
<br />
===Step III : Eliminating entries===<br />
Finally, adding appropriate multiples of row ''t'', it can be achieved that all entries in column ''j''<sub>''t''</sub> except for that at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) are zero. This can be achieved by left-multiplication with an appropriate matrix. However, to make the matrix fully diagonal we need to eliminate nonzero entries on the row of position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) as well. This can be achieved by repeating the steps in Step II for columns instead of rows, and using multiplication on the right. In general this will result in the zero entries from the prior application of Step III becoming nonzero again.<br />
<br />
However, notice that the [[ideals]] generated by the elements at position (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) form an [[ascending chain]], because entries from a later step always divide entries from a previous step. Therefore, since ''R'' is a [[Noetherian ring]] (it is a [[principal ideal domain|PID]]), the ideals eventually become stationary and do not change. This means that at some stage after Step II has been applied, the entry at (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) will divide all nonzero row or column entries before applying any more steps in Step II. Then we can eliminate entries in the row or column with nonzero entries while preserving the zeros in the already-zero row or column. At this point, only the block of ''A'' to the lower right of (''t'',''j''<sub>''t''</sub>) needs to be diagonalized, and conceptually the algorithm can be applied recursively, treating this block as a separate matrix. In other words, we can increment ''t'' by one and go back to Step I.<br />
<br />
===Final step===<br />
Applying the steps described above to the remaining non-zero columns of the resulting matrix (if any), we get an <math>m \times n</math>-matrix with column indices <math>j_1 < \ldots < j_r</math> where <math>r \le \min(m,n)</math>. The matrix entries <math>(l,j_l)</math> are non-zero, and every other entry is zero. This is a version of the [[Gauss algorithm]] for principal ideal domains which is usually described only for [[commutative law|commutative]] [[field (mathematics)|field]]s.<br />
<br />
Now we can re-order the columns of this matrix so that elements on positions <math>(i,i)</math> for <math>1 \le i\le r</math> are nonzero and <math>\delta(a_{ii}) \le \delta(a_{i+1,i+1})</math> for <math>1 \le i < r</math>; and all columns right of the <math>r</math>-th column (if present) are zero. For short, set <math>\alpha_i</math> for the element at position <math>(i,i)</math>. <math>\delta</math> has non-negative integer values; so <math>\delta(\alpha_1)=0</math> is equivalent to <math>\alpha_1</math> being a unit of <math>R</math>.<br />
<br />
<math>\delta(\alpha_i) =\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> can either happen if <math>\alpha_i</math> and <math>\alpha_{i+1}</math> differ by a unit factor, or if they are relative prime. In the latter case one can add column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math> (which doesn't change <math>\alpha_i)</math> and then apply appropriate row manipulations to get <math>\alpha_i=1</math>.<br />
And for <math>\delta(\alpha_i)<\delta(\alpha_{i+1})</math> and <math>\alpha_i \nmid<br />
\alpha_{i+1}</math> one can apply Step II after adding column <math>i+1</math> to column <math>i</math>.<br />
<br />
This diminishes the minimum <math>\delta</math>-values for non-zero entries of the matrix, and by reordering columns etc. we end up with a matrix whose diagonal elements <math>\alpha_i</math> satisfy <math>\alpha_i \mid \alpha_{i+1}\;\forall\;1 \le i < r</math>.<br />
<br />
Since all row and column manipulations involved in the process are invertible, this shows that there exist invertible <math>m \times m</math> and <math>n \times n</math>-matrices ''S, T'' so that the product ''S A T'' satisfies the definition of a Smith normal form. In particular, this shows that the Smith normal form exists, which was assumed without proof in the definition.<br />
<br />
== Applications ==<br />
<br />
The Smith normal form is useful for computing the [[homology (mathematics)|homology]] of a [[chain complex]] when the chain modules of the chain complex are [[finitely generated]]. For instance, in [[topology]], it can be used to compute the homology of a [[simplicial complex]] or [[CW complex]] over the integers, because the boundary maps in such a complex are just integer matrices. It can also be used to prove the well known [[structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain]].<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
As an example, we will find the Smith normal form of the following matrix over the integers.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 4 & 4 \\<br />
-6 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
10 & -4 & -16<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
The following matrices are the intermediate steps as the algorithm is applied to the above matrix.<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
-6 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
10 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -24& -36<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24 \\<br />
0 & -6 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 18 & 24<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 12 \\<br />
0 & 0 & -12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
\to<br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
So the Smith normal form is<br />
<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{pmatrix}<br />
2 & 0 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 6 & 0 \\<br />
0 & 0 & 12<br />
\end{pmatrix}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
and the elementary divisors are 2, 6 and 12.<br />
<br />
== Similarity ==<br />
The Smith normal form can be used to determine whether or not matrices with entries over a common field are [[Similar matrix|similar]]. Specifically two matrices ''A'' and ''B'' are similar if and only if the [[characteristic matrix|characteristic matrices]] <math>xI-A \mbox{ and } xI-B</math> have the same Smith normal form.<br />
<br />
For example, with<br />
:<math><br />
\begin{align}<br />
A & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 2 \\<br />
0 & 1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-A) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
B & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
3 & -4 \\<br />
1 & -1<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-B) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)^2<br />
\end{bmatrix} \\<br />
C & {} =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
1 & 2<br />
\end{bmatrix}, & & \mbox{SNF}(xI-C) =\begin{bmatrix}<br />
1 & 0 \\<br />
0 & (x-1)(x-2)<br />
\end{bmatrix}.<br />
\end{align}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
''A'' and ''B'' are similar because the Smith normal form of their characteristic matrices match, but are not similar to ''C'' because the Smith normal form of the characteristic matrices do not match.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
* [[Canonical form]]<br />
* [[Henry John Stephen Smith]] (1826 &ndash; 1883), whose name is attached to the Smith normal form<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* Thomas Heye's GFDL [http://planetmath.org/?method=l2h&from=objects&name=GausssAlgorithmForPrincipalIdealDomains&op=getobj Smith normal form article at PlanetMath]<br />
* GFDL [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ExampleOfSmithNormalForm.html Example of Smith normal form at PlanetMath]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Matrix theory]]<br />
[[Category:Matrix normal forms]]</div>Marc van Leeuwen