So I remember as a child when I was taught: $ . \bar9 =1 $ The proof was taught as:
$$x = 0.\bar{9} \\ 10x = 9.\bar{9} \\ 10x - x = 9.\bar{9} - 0.\bar{9} \\ 9x = 9 \\ x = 1 \\ \therefore 0.\bar{9} = 1$$
I was found the whole thing quite counter-intuitive and created my own "analog proof" of why it "must" be an absurd statement:
Let us "assume" $\bar 9$ can exist the same way we assumed $. \bar 9$ can exist.
$$x = \bar{9} \\ \frac{x}{10} = \bar9.{9} \\ x - \frac{x}{10} = \bar{9} - \bar{9}.9 \\ .9 x = -.9 \\ x = -1 \\ \therefore \bar{9} = - 1$$
Hence, by the same set of logic if $. \bar 9 = 1$ then $\bar 9 = -1$. I remember the maths teacher being really frustrated with me because of these kind of "stunts." I kind of sympathize with him that it would be really difficult to explain to a child without using "radius of convergence", etc.
Question
Is it possible to make sense to the "child version" of me without using the words "radius of convergence"?