
Re: Matheology sqrt(2): WM admits to unlistability of 0/1 sequences
Posted:
Dec 21, 2013 9:06 PM


On Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:39:07 PM UTC4, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote: > Den söndagen den 22:e december 2013 kl. 02:25:35 UTC+1 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com: > > > Den lördagen den 21:e december 2013 kl. 23:32:57 UTC+1 skrev wpih...@gmail.com: > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:22:05 PM UTC4, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see it is all very simple to be able to claim that 0.999... actually add up to 1. You must be able to prove that there is such x that 10^x actually equals zero and i do not see how you can. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't because it is never true. Fortunately, you dont't have to. 0.111... is equal to 1. (Hint look at the *limit* of the partial sums. Or look up the definition of infinite sum in a first year Calculus book. It has nothing to do with your imbecilic twaddle about adding up an infinite number of integers.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > William Hughes > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh fuck and i who always thought that 0.111... added up to 1/9 i must have missed something very fundamental. Or you have had a total mental breakdown i don't know... > > > > You see the algorithm i showed actually add up the sum 0.999... infinitly and it also add up the difference 0.000...1 infinitly.
Would should have tipped you off to the fact that you were talking nonsense. Have you found out what an infinite sum actually is > And as long there is a nonezero term in the sequense created from the iterated formula used in calculation, 0.999... simply can not equal 1.
You think that a sequence of nonzero terms cannot have a limit of 0?!? (Hint: the limit of a sequence need not be an element of the sequence. If the sequence is strictly increasing or strictly decreasing it cannot be).

