On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:47:04 +0800, "The Scarlet Manuka" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>"Paul Lutus" <email@example.com> wrote in message >news://uBBN7.firstname.lastname@example.org... >> "Mike Oliver" <email@example.com> wrote in message >> news://3C06DF1C.A1E93F0E@math.ucla.edu... >> >> > > Because infinity is not a number. Therefore any effort to include it >in a >> > > numerical operation ipso facto produces a meaningless result. >> > >> > Well, now, you didn't say 1/Infinity was *meaningless*; you said it >> > was not a number. That's different. My sister's cat, for example, is >[...] >> > There are lots of notions of infinite objects, no one of which I would >> > single out as the unique "Infinity", and I really don't care whether any >> > of them are called "numbers" or not. But I do care that I be allowed >> > to use arithmetical operations on them, when they're applicable. >> >> Okay. How does this relate to the fact that infinity is not a number? You >> certainly cannot perform numerical operations on infinity. > >You can in some contexts; for instance in the extended real line >1/infinity is not only meaningful but 0, by definition. Of course >zero is still not "an approximation of 1/infinity".
1/00 converges on 0.
0 is often used to approximate this covergance limit, practically.
So I wonder what we miss in the hidden n^00 decimal places.