byron
Posts:
751
Registered:
3/3/09
|
|
Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Posted:
Mar 12, 2013 9:39 PM
|
|
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:06:53 PM UTC+11, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> as Stevin explained,
>
> it's just a simple ambiguity,
>
> that is "taken care of with an equals sign."
>
>
>
> 1.0000... means, "one dot endless place-holders
>
> for powers of tenth;" you have got to visualize every "last" one
>
> of them.
>
>
>
> > yesw but .9999... is a non-finite number
>
> > and 1.0000.. is a finite number
>
>
>
> thus:
>
> he just never learned fractions; that simple, is
>
> that he cannot possibly "analyze the dimensionality
>
> of a problem," if he cannot ... cancel units in a simple fraction.
>
>
>
> also, this equation looks as if it has a "function of m,"
>
> although I don't recall, what he really thinks he means.
>
>
>
> the speed of light is in (say) meters per second;
>
> the growth of the wavefront is in skware meters per skware seconds,
>
> but that is two very differnt kind of "skwares" ... really,
>
> the Pythagorean theorem has *nothing* to do with skwares!
>
>
>
> > > KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m).
>
> > > And the correct equation for the acceleration
>
> > > due to gravity is g = 32.174 feet per second EACH second,
>
>
>
> thus:
>
> because you refuse to consider "atoms in free space," I had
>
> to stop rolling aorund on the floor to consider, Why the ****?
>
>
>
> thus:
>
> the elements (and isotopes) cannot be understood
>
> without reference to the regular hedra;
>
> see the Moon model,
>
> http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
>
>
>
> > # I'd claim that there is only one, authentic, presentation
>
> > of the elements, and that is the "short" version,
>
> > where Groups have A and B, plus the
>
> > Lanthanides and Actinides restored to the body
>
> > of the table. Messy, but
>
> > accurate - and reflecting the Evolution of the Elements.
>
>
>
> thus:
>
> the orbits of the electrons in the fly-away astronaut cannot
>
> go faster than the speed of light propogation (Snell's law
>
> of refraction, taken to extremus) "in the forward direction."
>
>
>
> what is so difficult?... of course,
>
> the orbits are not in general aligned with or against
>
> the direction of travel ... oh, no -- trigonometry!
you say
"as Stevin explained,"
it very simple really
as the proof shows
a non-finite number.9999...= a finite number 1.0000
thus maths ends in contradition
fact is
.9999... is a non-finite number
and 1.0000.. is a finite number
|
|
