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 4, 2017 4:19 AM


Am Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2017 01:29:50 UTC+2 schrieb Jim Burns: > On 10/3/2017 3:25 PM, netzweltler wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 3. Oktober 2017 16:20:25 UTC+2 > > schrieb Jim Burns: > >> On 10/3/2017 3:21 AM, netzweltler wrote: > >>> Am Dienstag, 3. Oktober 2017 03:22:11 UTC+2 > >>> schrieb Jim Burns: > >>>> On 10/2/2017 2:47 PM, netzweltler wrote: > >>>>> Am Montag, 2. Oktober 2017 20:35:56 UTC+2 > >>>>> schrieb Jim Burns: > >>>>>> On 10/2/2017 1:58 PM, netzweltler wrote: > >>>>>>> Am Montag, 2. Oktober 2017 17:59:21 UTC+2 > >>>>>>> schrieb Jim Burns: > >>>>>>>> On 10/1/2017 3:22 AM, netzweltler wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Do you agree that 0.999... means infinitely many > >>>>>>>>> commands > >>>>>>>>> Add 0.9 + 0.09 > >>>>>>>>> Add 0.99 + 0.009 > >>>>>>>>> Add 0.999 + 0.0009 > >>>>>>>>> ...? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 0.999... does not mean infinitely many commands. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But that's exactly what it means. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's not the standard meaning. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, you disagree that > >>>>> 0.999... = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... ? > >>>> > >>>> Your '...' is not usable. If we say what we _really_ mean, > >>>> in a manner clear enough to reason about, then the '...' > >>>> disappears. Also, what we are left with are finitely many > >>>> statements of finite length. You will not find infinitely > >>>> many commands in those finitelymany, finitelength > >>>> statements. > > [...] > > >>> Sorry, no. The meaning of "..." is absolutely clear in this > >>> context and > >> > >> Is it clear to you? Really? > >> > >> I ask because the basis for your whole complaint, in many > >> threads, is that '...' means "infinitely many commands" in > >> some way but then you're all "Whoa! that makes no sense, guys". > >> It does not look to me as though _what you think_ '...' > >> means in this context is at all clear _to you_ . > >> > >> ( _What you think_ it means is not what it means. This is > >> _my_ point.) > > > > Sorry, I don't get what you are trying to teach me. > > Do you understand our first exchange? I'm not asking if you > _agree_ with me. Do you _understand_ me? > > <Burns<netzweltler>> > > > Do you agree that 0.999... means infinitely many > > commands > > Add 0.9 + 0.09 > > Add 0.99 + 0.009 > > Add 0.999 + 0.0009 > > ...? > > 0.999... does not mean infinitely many commands. > > </Burns<netzweltler>>
To me it looks like that we don't even agree, that there are infinitely many 9s following. If there are infinitely many 9s following then there is a bijection between N and the decimal places in 0.999... If there are infinitely many 9s following then we are dealing with an infinite stepwise process as described above and I can't see why this shouldn't mean "infinitely many commands".

