netzweltler
Posts:
473
From:
Germany
Registered:
8/6/10
|
|
Re: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
Posted:
Oct 2, 2017 2:45 AM
|
|
Am Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2017 17:45:39 UTC+2 schrieb FromTheRafters: > netzweltler formulated the question : > > Am Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2017 15:20:16 UTC+2 schrieb FromTheRafters: > >> After serious thinking netzweltler wrote : > >>> Am Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2017 13:56:01 UTC+2 schrieb FromTheRafters: > >>>> > >>>> It seems counterintuitive when a number is viewed (or represented) as > >>>> an infinite unending 'process' of achieving better and better > >>>> approximations, and that we can never actually reach the destination > >>>> number. In my view, this sequence and/or infinite sum is a > >>>> representation of the destination number "as if" we could have gotten > >>>> there by that process. > >>> If the process doesn't get us there then we don't get there. Where do you > >>> get your "as if" from? > >> > >> If you had sufficient time, then you would get there. > > Show how time is involved in our process. > > If you have to add a next number (like one quarter) to a previous > result of adding such previous numbers (like one plus one half) then > you have introduced time. Thee is a 'previous' calculation needed as > input to the next calculation. The idea that you 'never' get there (to > two) introduces time also. I'm with you, I don't think time has any > place in this. > > >>>> IOW "*After* infinitely many 'better' > >>>> approximations" we reach the destination number *exactly* even if we > >>>> cannot 'pinpoint' that number on the number line. > >>> Please define "*After* infinitely many 'better' approximations". All we've > >>> got is infinitely many approximations - each approximation telling us that > >>> we get closer to 1 but don't reach 1. There is no *after* specified in > >>> this process. > >> > >> There is also no "time" mentioned, so why is there an assumption of a > >> process which takes time to complete? It is already completed (pi > >> exists as a number despite our inability to pinpoint it on the number > >> line by using an infinite alternating sum or any of the other infinite > >> processes) we just can't pinpoint it because we exist in a time > >> constrained universe with processes which take time to complete. > > If you insist on introducing time to our process, try this: > > You misunderstand me. I'm not insisting that, in fact I insist the > opposite. I take the infinite sequence or series representation to be > just that, a represenation of a number -- not a process at all. This > avoids the idea that time is a constraint against a number being exact. > > When it come to application, then you may have to consider the > indicated process and get as close an approximation as you desire. The > representations 0.999... and the infinite series or the sequences > related to it, are all just different representations of the number > one, just as our current representation are all representations of the > number two. Time has nothing at all to do with it, hence there is no > 'almost, but not quite there' to worry about.
Correct. Time is of no concern. So, let me modify the list:
t = 0: write 0.9 t = 0.9: append another 9 t = 0.99: append another 9 ...
to
1. write 0.9 2. append another 9 3. append another 9 ...
Do you still agree that this is a _complete_ list of all the actions needed to write 0.999... (already present - in no time)? It is a list of additions as well. All the additions it takes to sum up to 0.999... Again the question: If your claim is, that we reach point 1, you need to show which step on this list of infinitely many steps accomplishes that.
|
|