fom
Posts:
1,098
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Posted:
Mar 13, 2013 2:42 PM
|
|
On 3/13/2013 7:58 AM, JT wrote:
> 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.
>
Silly person.
Your social class is too full of people with money in
their pocket.
Every poor person knows that 0 is a number used for
counting even if it did not exist in the Roman numeral
system. It is, quite sadly, how much money is in
their pockets on a regular basis.
|
|
