Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Replies: 24   Last Post: Feb 15, 2014 3:42 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
JT

Posts: 1,150
Registered: 4/7/12
Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>

Posted: Apr 10, 2013 7:52 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 11 Apr, 00:35, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 Apr, 21:07, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>

> > see Stevin's _The Decimals_ for the ambguous case in odometermath,
> > cannonically: ...0001.0000... defined isomorphic to ...0000.9999...

>
> Why don't you like the hashmarks it is afterall what your dreamed up
> numberline is made of, and YOU have to partition it to make any sense.
> Since the reals is not baseless, but fractions are.
>
> If you wanted to represent a binary 5 as 101 ={{{1111}}1} that just
> will grove weirder with the number of zeros because there is no
> decomposition into the base, just a freaking huge collection that may
> or may not be a square.
>
> Counting base 1   5={1,1,1,1,1}
> Binary            5={{1,1}{1,1}1}
> Ternary           5={{1,1,1}1,1}
> Quaternary        5={{1,1,1,1}1}
> Senary            5={1,1,1,1,1}
> Septenary         5={1,1,1,1,1}
> Octal             5={1,1,1,1,1}
> Nonary            5={1,1,1,1,1}
> Decimal           5={1,1,1,1,1}
>
> I have not thought about representing base1(unary?) fractionals
> becase
> fractionals is superior to partitioning into base, but possible .{1}
> for 1/3 and 3/9 .{{1,1,1}  9/27 .{{{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1} what do you
> think.

Ternarys if anyone in doubt...

This is the true nature of numbers collections and cuts, the
> number line is just dreamed up. Numbers are baseless we partition and
> create the semantics the collections is interpretated in, not the
> other way around. And i show you the simples semantics for numbers.
> Collections and cuts.
>


Ternarys if anyone in doubt..
> I have not thru about howto represent base1(unary?) fractionals
> becase
> fractionals is superior to partitioning into base, but possible .{1}
> for 1/3 and 3/9 .{{1,1,1}  9/27 .{{{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1} what do you
> think.
>
> Do you have any problem interpretate this numbersystem, in reality
> though there are better representations more compact. But they are all
> without zeros and bijective.




Date Subject Author
4/10/13
Read 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
byron
4/10/13
Read Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Jens Stuckelberger
4/10/13
Read Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
bacle
4/10/13
Read Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
William Hughes
4/10/13
Read show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
Brian Q. Hutchings
4/10/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
JT
4/10/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
JT
4/10/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
JT
4/10/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
JT
4/10/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
JT
4/10/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
JT
4/12/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
Brian Q. Hutchings
4/14/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
Brian Q. Hutchings
4/10/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
JT
4/11/13
Read Re: show the cannonical base-one digital representation not God-am
hashmarks thank you don't do it again <endquote>
JT
1/8/14
Read Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
byron
1/8/14
Read Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Pfsszxt@aol.com
1/8/14
Read Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
Brian Q. Hutchings
1/8/14
Read Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
William Hughes
1/9/14
Read Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction
DrMWEcker
2/12/14
Read "the poster is not merely wrong but actually making no sense and even saying nothing"
Port563
2/12/14
Read Re: "the poster is not merely wrong but actually making no sense and
even saying nothing"
thenewcalculus@gmail.com
2/12/14
Read it simply cannot be avoided in "digital number bases, other than
base-one (where it does not arise
Brian Q. Hutchings
2/14/14
Read Re: it simply cannot be avoided in "digital number bases, other than
base-one (where it does not arise
thenewcalculus@gmail.com
2/15/14
Read the dog ate your sense of humor
Brian Q. Hutchings

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.