```Date: Oct 3, 2017 4:36 PM
Author: mitchrae3323@gmail.com
Subject: Re: There is No quantity inbetween .9 repeating and 1

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-7, John Gabriel wrote:> On Monday, 2 October 2017 14:21:32 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com  wrote:> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:15:26 AM UTC-7, John Gabriel wrote:> > > On Sunday, 1 October 2017 22:04:50 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com  wrote:> > > > Add the infinitely small to .9 repeating and you get 1.> > > > .9 repeating is a Transcendental One.> > > > They share a Sameness that is different only by> > > > the smallest first quantity or 1 divided by> > > > infinity or the infinitely small.> > > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch> > > > > > Nope. 0.999... is not a number of any kind> > > > No. That is a lie you believe.> > That is a quantity; in the transcendental> > category.> > Chuckle.  You are even more confused than Jan Burse, Zelos Madman and "Me".If point 999 repeating goes on forever it's transcendental.It shares a sameness to one by the infinitely small differencebetween the two quantities. They are absolute next quantities toeach other; only nothing or 0 in between them.> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch> > > > .  It is NOT a limit even though mainstream morons tell you it is.> > > > > > The raison de etre of 0.999... is the bogus infinite series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...> > > > > > 0.999... is most accurately SHORT for the series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...> > > > > > The series 0.9+0.09+0.009+... has a limit for its partial sums which is 1.> > > > > > Euler defined the series as being equal to its limit, that is, S = Lim S.> > > > > > There is no proof, no theorem, no other nonsense required to understand this definition. It is ill-formed concept and Euler's Blunder.The infinitely small difference for them needs to defined .9 repeating to 1
```