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 ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 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:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> 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

>>
>>> 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.

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