Date: Oct 3, 2017 8:22 PM
Author: bursejan@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Fixing the representation of numbers Re: Completed Quotient of<br> Newton Re: reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9)

So whats the result of:

lim n->oo 0.999...9995 = ?
\---n---/

Or with Newton numbers:

lim n->oo 0.999...999(5/10) = ?
\---n---/

Am Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2017 01:55:13 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:54:24 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 9:21:37 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Newsgroups: sci.math
> > > Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 08:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > > Subject: Why is there a difference between fractions 1/3 and .333 repeating
> > > multiplied by 3
> > > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:32:50 +0000
> > >
> > >
> > > Because you cannot mix fraction with a decimal unless the decimal ends in 0's
> > >
> > > For example 10 divided by 3 is 10/3 or written as 3+1/3
> > >
> > > But completely wrong when writing it as 3.333.... Because the dots mean nothing, unless you write it as 3.3333...33(1/3) so you include the carryover at infinity
> > >
> > > This means that .99999.... is not 1, unless you included the carryover at infinity border as this
> > >
> > > .99999....99(10/9) which in fact is 1
> > >
> > > For you divide 10 by 9 carry the 1 leaving behind 0, 1 added to 9 is 10, carryover the 1, leaving behind another 0, finishing off with
> > >
> > > .9999....99(10/9) = 1.0000.....
> > >
> > > You see Old Math was too dumb and lazy to define how those dots ......... Interfaces with fractions, too dumb too lazy
> > >
> > > AP
> > >
> > > Newsgroups: sci.math
> > > Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 19:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > > Subject: the reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3)
> > > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 02:10:39 +0000
> > >
> > > the reason why 1=.99999....99(10/9) and why 1/3 = .333333......33(1/3)
> > >
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:33:05 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > > > Because you cannot mix fraction with a decimal unless the decimal ends in 0's
> > > >
> > > > For example 10 divided by 3 is 10/3 or written as 3+1/3
> > > >
> > > > But completely wrong when writing it as 3.333.... Because the dots mean nothing, unless you write it as 3.3333...33(1/3) so you include the carryover at infinity
> > > >
> > > > This means that .99999.... is not 1, unless you included the carryover at infinity border as this
> > > >
> > > > .99999....99(10/9) which in fact is 1
> > > >
> > > > For you divide 10 by 9 carry the 1 leaving behind 0, 1 added to 9 is 10, carryover the 1, leaving behind another 0, finishing off with
> > > >
> > > > .9999....99(10/9) = 1.0000.....
> > > >
> > > > You see Old Math was too dumb and lazy to define how those dots ......... Interfaces with fractions, too dumb too lazy
> > > >
> > > >

> > >
> > > Alright, let me expand and expound on the ideas above, of undefined and ignorant dots .............
> > >
> > > The snobs, and slobs of Old Math who think that 1/3 = .333333..... and that 1 = .999999.....
> > >
> > > Well, ask those slobs and snobs, ask them to add
> > >
> > > 0.9999999.....
> > > +.9999999.......
> > >
> > > watch the goon squad try to get rid of this 1.99999.....9998
> > >
> > > ask the goon squad how they got rid of the "8"
> > >
> > > But, on the other hand, when you well define the ellipsis, for those series of dots ...... is called Ellipsis
> > >
> > > If you well define the ellipsis with an infinity border and where you include all REMAINDERS in division.
> > > Then you have a correct and proper mathematics.
> > >
> > > The example that must always be followed in division is the remainder
> > >    ________
> > > 3| 1000       = 333+1/3
> > >
> > > We never imagine that the correct final answer is without that fraction 1/3 added on
> > >
> > > Thus, when we have
> > >
> > >    ________
> > > 3| 1.000...       = .333....(+1/3)
> > >
> > > for we have a ending fraction of (+1/3)
> > >
> > > Now, the slobs and snobs never realized how important that (+1/3) was for they boneheadedly did this
> > >
> > > .3333333333.......... plus .3333333...........  = .666666666........ and thought everything was A-okay
> > >
> > > But look what the true addition is like:
> > >
> > > .333333.....33(+1/3) + .333333.....33(+1/3) = .66666666........66(+2/3)
> > >
> > > You see how unmessy that is, because, well look at this by the boneheads:
> > >
> > > .99999999..... + .99999999..... = 1.999999......998
> > >
> > > Whereas true math has
> > >
> > > .9999999......99(+10/9) + .9999999.....99(+10/9) = 1.999999.....98(+20/9) = 2.00000....(+0)
> > >
> > > So, you see how clean that all is, rather than what the slobs, snobs and boneheads dish out in their fantasies of math.
> > >
> > > They are failures, regular failures of math for they refuse to define infinity with a borderline and then they make up this crap that .9999.... is the same as 1, or that .33333.... is the same as 1/3 when they forgot about the remainder.
> > >
> > >

> >
> > Now, one more of these.
> >
> > 0.666666......
> > +.666666...... and Old Math with their snobs and slobs would think that addition is
> >
> > 1.33333.......332 for they can never escape from the "2" digit, and should have warned the Logically impaired mathematicians, that they needed so fix up work, some repair in their theory of numbers.
> >
> > Such a repair would have told them that they need a infinity borderline where all Quotients are Completed-- an idea running as far back as Newton in his fluxions.
> >
> > So, what is the proper way of doing 2/3 + 2/3?
> >
> > For, you must realize that 2/3 is not equal to .66666.... as the goon squad in Old Math want you to worship, not only regurgitate that back to them but worship.
> >
> > For, what 2/3 written as a decimal is really that of .66666.....66(2/3)
> >
> > where, like Newton, you never forget the small tiny remainder and so you finally completed your division.
> >
> > The number .66666..... is a tad smaller of a number than is the number .66666....66(2/3), for the remainder (2/3) makes all the difference in addition of 2/3 + 2/3
> >
> > .66666....66(2/3) + .66666....66(2/3), this equals 1.33333...332(4/3) which equals 1.3333...33(1/3)
> >
> > So, here the question is, why in the world did mathematicians abandon the Completed Quotient of Newton of 4 centuries ago? Was it too advanced for them to realize its vast importance, especially all the quack mathematicians who think .9999.... is the same as 1.
> >
> > Is it that no-one reads Newton's fluxions anymore?
> >
> >

>
> Alright, it is a wonder that Newton should have developed the Reals rather than waiting for Cauchy and Dedekind to corruptly develop the Reals. If Newton had developed the Reals-- started by Descartes in 1637 and Newton with his Compleat Quotient in 1687 would have made a much better development of Reals.
>
> But I need to firmly get the Indexing correct.
>
> I said 1 = .99999...99(10/9)
>
> But perhaps that was a mistake and should be 1 = .99999....99(+9/9)
>
> So that in 1/3 = .33333....33(+1/3) to make 2/3 we add the index to be (+2/3)
>
> What this does is make all Numbers a completed number, not some vague rambling on to infinity.
>
> So that .99999..... is just simply not equal to 1 but a tad short of 1.
>
> Now, Newton's Compleat Quotient does not use a add sign, so mine is different from Newton's in that regard.
>
> What I am doing here is fixing the Decimal Representation that needed to be fixed for it simply is in error when it comes to division.
>
> The number 1/3 is a completed division, but the number 1/3 as a decimal, is not .3333..... but rather is .3333....33(+1/3).
>
> AP