On 13 mar, 10:42, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 3/12/2013 10:24 PM, Virgil wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > 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.
The naturals are discrete your conception of numbers is fault, the idea of writing 1.000... is wrong in so many ways i do not know where to start, your invisible elephants following your single discrete natural entity is just bananas convoluted thoughts for monkeys.