JT
Posts:
436
Registered:
4/7/12
|
|
Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Posted:
Mar 13, 2013 10:26 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.
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.
|
|
