
Re: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
Posted:
Oct 2, 2017 6:33 PM


What do you want to fix? If pi is already there, than a 0step process is sufficient, the process says:
hi I am at pi
Or if you want you can use a 1step process, one that starts with Euler number e: hi I am at e now I add pie to myself hi I am at pi
I guess you mean Qseries or something. Yes pi is irrational, no element from Q. And a Qseries will never hit pi on its way. Here is a proof:
Proof: Assume a Qseries would hit pi on its way. Then there would be an index n, such that sn=pi, the partial sum up to n summands would equal pi.
But each partial sum of a Qseries is from Q, and pi is not from Q, so we would get a contradiction saying pi is from Q, since it would be sn=pi.
So by proof by contradiction the Qseries cannot hit pi.
Am Montag, 2. Oktober 2017 23:32:25 UTC+2 schrieb netzweltler: > Am Montag, 2. Oktober 2017 22:09:44 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > > Well this is probably the greatest nonsense somebody > > ever posted on sci.math. You know, you didn't say > > rational number line. > > > > So when it is the real number line, pi is of course > > there. There is of course a point on the real number > > line that is pi. > > It doesn't make sense to discuss the "number line" as long as the problem under discussion hasn't been fixed. > > > > > Am Montag, 2. Oktober 2017 19:54:44 UTC+2 schrieb netzweltler: > > > Yes. pi is already there and we can exactly locate its position on the number line, but you cannot locate a point on the number line representing pi if this point would be the result of a stepwise process  neither a finite process nor an infinite.

