Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Replies: 53   Last Post: Mar 18, 2013 9:33 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 JT Posts: 1,448 Registered: 4/7/12
Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Posted: Mar 13, 2013 8:58 AM

On 13 mar, 10:42, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/12/2013 10:24 PM, Virgil wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <f93df84b-f04d-434c-832e-d458c0df9b2c@googlegroups.com>,
> >   spermato...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> >> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:19:51 AM UTC+11, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
> >> wrote:

> >>> yes, and the proper infinite series with which
>
> >>> it is to be compared, is the "real number,"
>
> >>> 1.0000..., not omitting any of the zeroes
>
> >>> on your little blackboard, dood.
>
> >>> see Simon Stevins; *creation* of teh decimals,
>
> >>> including this sole ambiguity, 15cce.
>
> >>>>      It s a symbol which represents an "infinite series",
>
> >>>> which in turn is a sequence.
>
> >> yesw but .9999... is a non-finite number
> >> and 1.0000.. is a finite number
> >> thus
> >> when maths shows
> >> .9999... is a non-finite number = 1.0000.. is a finite number
> >> it ends in contradiction

>
> > 0.9999... and 1.0000... are numerals (names of numbers), not numbers.
> > They are only different names for the same number.

>
> And, in addition, to say that 1.000... is
> finite may also be arguable.
>
> As names, decimal expansions are what they
> are.  1.000... expresses a particular name
> exactly.  Without the full expression, one
> must consider scenarios involving rounding
> error.  In that case, the finite representation
> corresponds to an equivalence class of
> decimal expansions that round to whatever
> finite number of significant digits specifies
> the system of finite abbreviation.
>
> To say that 1.000... is finite without
> qualification is to invoke a convention that
> is not intrinsic to the system of names that
> grounds the representation.
>
> Of course, it is a common convention...
>
> ...that ought not invalidate mathematics.

Silly man 0 is not a mathematical object it have no magnitude when
used for counting and measuring it is just a label that an operation
exhausted it's operands.

Date Subject Author
3/8/13 byron
3/9/13 bacle
3/9/13 Pfsszxt@aol.com
3/12/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/12/13 byron
3/12/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/12/13 byron
3/12/13 Virgil
3/13/13 YBM
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/14/13 JT
3/14/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/12/13 bacle
3/12/13 Virgil
3/13/13 fom
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 fom
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 fom
3/14/13 JT
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/14/13 JT
3/14/13 JT
3/13/13 fom
3/13/13 JT
3/16/13 byron
3/16/13 JT
3/13/13 JT
3/14/13 Transfer Principle
3/15/13 JT
3/15/13 JT
3/15/13 JT
3/15/13 JT
3/15/13 JT
3/18/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/14/13 JT
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/14/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/13/13 fom
3/13/13 JT
3/13/13 fom
3/13/13 JT
3/9/13 J. Antonio Perez M.
3/13/13 JT
3/15/13 harold james