fom
Posts:
1,969
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 <f93df84bf04d434c832ed458c0df9b2c@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 nonfinite number >>>> and 1.0000.. is a finite number >>>> thus >>>> when maths shows >>>> .9999... is a nonfinite 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.

