That observation is true, false, meaningless, and meaningful.

No. Consult your pineal gland.

Gen Z my sides that’s pre-boomer stuff. You’re like 100-200 years behind the curve on absurdism and you’re not even doing it well.

Have you tried not being a cabbage?

Eris help us, the zoomers are here with lame humour.

Hence why post-scarcity is the natural death point of capitalism.

Your question is essentially the same as Freudians arguing among themselves about the existence of a death drive: How could it possibly benefit the individual? If it can’t in some way benefit the individual, how can it be a drive? How does it mesh with the pleasure principle? The answer is simple: It doesn’t benefit the individual. In certain circumstances it benefits the genome, that’s why us seed-pods can, in certain circumstances, enter states in which it is pleasurable.

And all-encompassing and all-powerful, indeed, religious, as capitalism may seem right now it, too, is a seed pod. It does not have to will its abolishment to bring about the material conditions abolishing it.

Of course there’s also nothing speaking against it not making things unduly nasty for us. But that’s mere politics, not fate.

And here we have a typical specimen exhibiting capitalist realism: Observe how the subject is analysing everything they come across on a “who works for who” basis, projecting human modes of production onto the universe. Applying it, even in vain, this reductive universality ensures that they will never think beyond it and, not thinking beyond it, not question either working for a capitalist or being a capitalist who is worked for, thereby in either case working for capitalism, a form of human cooperation in which happiness, well-being, yes even human connection (that necessitating eye-level communication) is traded for hastened advancement of the economy to achieve post-scarcity.

Presumably when we’re talking off-site backups we’re talking about a separate company sitting somewhere in an abandoned nuclear bunker which can justify the price of a tape drive or twenty.

Isn’t that what tapes are for.

Why is basic arithmetic so sacred that it must not be besmirched?

It isn’t. It’s convenient. Toss it if you don’t want to use it. What’s not an option though is to use it incorrectly, and that would be insisting that 0.999… /= 1, because that doesn’t make any sense.

A notational system doesn’t get to say “well I like to do numbers this way, let’s break all the axioms or arithmetic”. If you say that 0.333… = 1/3, then it necessarily follows that 0.999… = 1. Forget about “but how do I calculate that” think about “does multiplying the same number by the same number yield the same result”.

catches people because using arithmetic properly leads to an incorrect understanding of repeating decimals.

Repeating decimals aren’t apart from decimal arithmetic. They’re a necessary part of it. If you didn’t learn 0.999… = 1, you did not learn decimal arithmetic. And with “necessary” I mean necessary: Any positional system that supports expressing rational numbers will have repeating digits. It’s the trade-off you make, by fixing the divisor (10 in our case), to make numbers easily comparable by size, because no number can divide any number cleanly because there’s an infinite number of primes. Quick, which is the bigger number: 38/127 or 39/131.

Any notational system has its awkward spots. You will not get around awkward spots. Decimal notation has quite few of them, certainly fewer than Roman numerals where being able to do long division earned you a Ph.D. If you can come up with something better be my guest, I already linked you to a starting point.

0.999… has no smallest digit, thus the carry operation fails to roll it over to 1.

That’s where limits get involved, snatching the carry from the brink of infinity. You could, OTOH, also ignore that and simply accept that it has to be the case because 0.333… * 3. And let me emphasise this doubly and triply: That is a correct mathematical understanding. You don’t need to get limits involved. It doesn’t make it any more correct, or detailed, or anything. Glancing at Occam’s razor, it’s even the preferable explanation: There’s a gazillion overcomplicated and egg-headed ways to write 1 + 1 = 2 (just have a look at the Principia Mathematica), that doesn’t mean that a kindergarten student doesn’t understand the concept correctly. Begone, superfluous sophistication!

(I just noticed that sophistication actually shares a root with sophistry. What a coincidence)

Someone using only basic arithmetic on decimal notation will conclude that 0.999… is not 1.

Doesn’t pass scrutiny, because then either 0.333… /= 1/3 or 3 /= 3 (or both). It simply cannot be the case when looking at the whole system, as opposed to only the single question 0.999… ?= 1 and trying to glean something from that. Context matters: Any answer to that question has to be consistent with all the rest you know about the natural numbers. And only 0.999… = 1 fulfils that.

Why are you making this so complicated?

I get that ever model is wrong, but some are useful.

There is nothing wrong about decimal notation. It is correct. There’s also nothing wrong about Roman numerals… they’re just awkward AF.

Basic decimal notation doesn’t work well with some things, and insinuates incorrect answers.

You could just as well argue that fractional notation “insinuates” that 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/6. You could argue that 8 + 8 is four because that’s four holes there. Lots of things that people can consider more intuitive than the intended meaning. Don’t get me started on English spelling.

Terms.

There! Syntax. We went over this. Seriously, we did, and, no, I got the last word.

I suggest you check some Maths textbooks, instead of listening to a Physics major.

I can check any textbook from any discipline. You know what? I could even ask my school teachers. Because I’m not American and I wasn’t taught shit that doesn’t match up with what professionals are doing.

You’re just another yank drunk on jingoism, “We do it like that, therefore, it is right”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCDca6dYpA

…oh wait I remember that Unicody user name. It’s you. Didn’t I already explain to you the difference between syntax and semantics until you gave up. I suggest we don’t do it again but instead, you review the thread.

Also it’s not like “getting food is easier” is the only hypothesis out there as to why we settled down. Another one, IMO much more in line with human nature, is that we figured out how to ferment beer and for that reason planted buttloads of grain.

0.999… = 1 requires more advanced algebra in a pointed argument,

You’re used to one but not the other. You convinced yourself that because one is new or unacquainted it is hard, while the rest is not. The rule I mentioned Is certainly easier that 2x/x that’s actual algebra right there.

It’s as if all math must be regarded as infinitely perfect, and any unbelievers must be cast out to the pyre of harsh correction

Why, yes. I totally can see your point about decimal notation being awkward in places though I doubt there’s a notation that isn’t, in some area or the other, awkward, and decimal is good enough. We’re also used to it, that plays a big role in whether something is judged convenient.

On the other hand 0.9999… must be equal to 1. Because otherwise the system would be wrong: For the system to be acceptable, for it to be infinitely perfect in its consistency with everything else, it must work like that.

And that’s what everyone’s saying when they’re throwing “1/3 = 0.333… now multiply both by three” at you: That 1 = 0.9999… is necessary. That it must be that way. And because it must be like that, it is like that. Because the integrity of the system trumps your own understanding of what the rules of decimal notation are, it trumps your maths teacher, it trumps all the Fields medallists. That integrity is primal, it’s always semantics first, then figure out some syntax to support it (unless you’re into substructural logics, different topic). It’s why you see mathematicians use the term “abuse of notation” but never “abuse of semantics”.

The teacher couldn’t possibly fathom marking “mega” right for students who had only context from the classroom and also marking “yotta” right for students who had done independent research.

That is child abuse. Literally. The way my teachers worked, presumably because they learned how to deal with the situation when actually studying pedagogics (a thing we require of teachers here) is to give an extra point because you want to encourage kids to figure things out on their own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting

…if that’s too heady do note that if you have a heap of four marshmallows and a heap of five marshmallows then that’s the same as having a heap of five marshmallows and a heap of four marshmallows. To have a heap of nine marshmallows, you first have to turn them into a single heap. That’s reducing the number of heaps from two to one and that’s a hand-wavy way to justify the term.

That’s like asking a fusion researcher whether the reactor needs to reach 100 million Celsius or Kelvin, isn’t it.

Or signed integers because overflow is undefined. It could do the left-hand computation in two’s complement and the right hand in sign-magnitude, leading to different results. Or, as it’s undefined, it could brew you some coffee and serve it with an aspirin.