JT
Posts:
1,448
Registered:
4/7/12
|
|
Re: Matheology sqrt(-2): WM admits to unlistability of 0/1 sequences
Posted:
Dec 21, 2013 5:31 PM
|
|
Den lördagen den 21:e december 2013 kl. 23:07:22 UTC+1 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> Den lördagen den 21:e december 2013 kl. 22:45:50 UTC+1 skrev Virgil:
>
> > In article <f0e5ddd0-3f73-490d-87bd-d786d931c7ed@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >
>
> > mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, 21 December 2013 21:15:47 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > In article <648b5671-ece9-4998-a412-9766ac3c0c8d@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > My very lose understanding of infinity, we can construct an
>
> >
>
> > > > > algorithm that create an unfinite number terms in a list the
>
> >
>
> > > > > simplest would be 1+1+1..., but we can not ever complete the list
>
> >
>
> > > > > and never find the last member.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Since infinite lists by definition do not have last members, not
>
> >
>
> > > > being able to find one is a GOOD thing.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Since infinite sequences by definition have infinitely many terms
>
> >
>
> > > following beyond every term, and every term is belonging to a finite
>
> >
>
> > > initial sequence, not finding nearly all terms is a good thing.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Only in the Wilds of Wolkenmuekenheim.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For any sequence given by formula, one has already found ALL terms,
>
> >
>
> > and THAT is a good thing..
>
> >
>
> > --
>
>
>
> Without giving a magnitude of ALL, that seem like handwaving to me.
>
> Take this computation when will it reach zero.
>
> x=1;
>
> y=0.9
>
> while (x>0) {x=x-y; y=y/10;}
>
>
>
> According to mainstream math 0.999... is to be equal to 1, although i just proved it never will.
If you claim never you are on the right track, if you claim after infinity where do you place it temporal, because i just can't see that subtraction ever reach one.
So is it possible the answer is never, and could the conclusion be that 0.999... not really equal to 1.
|
|
