In article <virgil-16CD4A.02232808022013@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> In article > <email@example.com>, > JT <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > On 8 Feb, 09:22, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > In article <email@example.com>, > > > > > > spermato...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > simply > > > > 0.9999.... is a non-finite number/ > > > > > > For the number represented by 0.999..., which is clearly greater than > > > zero, to be infinite, it would have to at least be greater than 1 as > > > well, but is not! > > > > > > If you mean that 0.999... represents an infinitely long numeral, that is > > > something quite different. > > > > > > If you cannot distinguish between a numeral and the number it > > > represents, you are too ignorant to be posting to sci.math. > > > -- > > > > It is the same concepts Virgil you should now > > I do not know how to 'now' concepts. > > > that 1/inf of the same > > size as N/inf, > > That depends on whether N is a member of the set of naturals numbers or > is the set of natual numbers itself.
* If 0.999... is not equal to 1, then there is a number between 0.999... and 1