On Jun 1, 2:41 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote: > In article <1180681185.812415.185...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > <chaja...@mail.com> wrote: > >Jesse I'm glad you brought this up. It is imperative people understand > >I am using 0.999... to be literally the series. > > If you have a different definition of 0.999... frmo the usual one, it's > not surprising that you get different answers. > > >People are taught that > >0.999... is equal to 1 years before they are ever taught about limits. > > Actually, I don't remember the subject coming up at all. I remember being > told that 0.333... is the decimal representation of 1/3, though. > > >I am saying that the full sum of the series would never equal 1, it is > >less > > The sum of any finite part of the sequence is not 1. But 0.999... > doesn't represent any finite part of it. > > >We try to teach students in > >early math that the series itself ~equals~ one > > We do? Series don't equal numbers! > > >It is only this equality I refute, not the limit. > > If students are told that 0.999... = 1 without being told about limits, > then that just means that something is being missed out. It doesn't > having any bearing on the truth of the equality. > > -- Richard > -- > "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters > in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Hi Richard,
I would just like to point out that I am not attempting to say that 0.999... defined as a limit is not equal to 1. What I am amazed by is the degree to which the entity I am expressing, that is in no way a limit, cannot be accepted and understood in its own terms by others. They refuse to allow me the use of a decimal representation of 0.999... unless I will strictly adhere to another mathematical convention, no matter how much I attempt to disown that convention and state that my proof is not trying to contradict the truths within the realm of that convention. It gets somewhat tiresome...
