>>21
Only the former is true. 0.999... expressed as the usual limit is 1. You made no point whatsoever except to affirm the premise by which I made my conclusion.
What's the embarrassment in that? In fact, the embarrassment here should be YOURS, since you failed epicly in pointing out the flaw in this chain of reasoning:
1. 0.999... has a limit.
2. That limit converges at infinity.
3. That convergence value is 1.