Date: Mar 14, 2013 12:52 PM
Author: JT
Subject: Re: 0.9999... = 1 that means mathematics ends in contradiction

On 13 mar, 20:07, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/13/2013 9:57 AM, JT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 13 mar, 15:48, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 13 mar, 15:39, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 13 mar, 14:42, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 13 mar, 13:58, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 13 mar, 10:42, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 3/12/2013 10:24 PM, Virgil wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> In article <f93df84b-f04d-434c-832e-d458c0df9b2c@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>>>    spermato...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:19:51 AM UTC+11, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
> >>>>>>>> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> yes, and the proper infinite series with which
>
> >>>>>>>>> it is to be compared, is the "real number,"
>
> >>>>>>>>> 1.0000..., not omitting any of the zeroes
>
> >>>>>>>>> on your little blackboard, dood.
>
> >>>>>>>>> see Simon Stevins; *creation* of teh decimals,
>
> >>>>>>>>> including this sole ambiguity, 15cce.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>       It s a symbol which represents an "infinite series",
>
> >>>>>>>>>> which in turn is a sequence.
>
> >>>>>>>> yesw but .9999... is a non-finite number
> >>>>>>>> and 1.0000.. is a finite number
> >>>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>> when maths shows
> >>>>>>>> .9999... is a non-finite number = 1.0000.. is a finite number
> >>>>>>>> it ends in contradiction

>
> >>>>>>> 0.9999... and 1.0000... are numerals (names of numbers), not numbers.
> >>>>>>> They are only different names for the same number.

>
> >>>>>> And, in addition, to say that 1.000... is
> >>>>>> finite may also be arguable.

>
> >>>>>> As names, decimal expansions are what they
> >>>>>> are.  1.000... expresses a particular name
> >>>>>> exactly.  Without the full expression, one
> >>>>>> must consider scenarios involving rounding
> >>>>>> error.  In that case, the finite representation
> >>>>>> corresponds to an equivalence class of
> >>>>>> decimal expansions that round to whatever
> >>>>>> finite number of significant digits specifies
> >>>>>> the system of finite abbreviation.

>
> >>>>>> To say that 1.000... is finite without
> >>>>>> qualification is to invoke a convention that
> >>>>>> is not intrinsic to the system of names that
> >>>>>> grounds the representation.

>
> >>>>>> Of course, it is a common convention...
>
> >>>>>> ...that ought not invalidate mathematics.
>
> >>>>> Silly man 0 is not a mathematical object it have no magnitude when
> >>>>> used for counting and measuring it is just a label that an operation
> >>>>> exhausted it's operands.

>
> >>>> 0.999... is just a label unfortunatly the context it try to label 1
> >>>> within is incorrect to start with something with unfinished decimal
> >>>> expansion is just an approximation, change base.
> >>>> 0.3 in ternary is a correct label in fact it *is* 1 thus you are free
> >>>> to write 0.3 or 1 in ternarys, this is not true for decimal
> >>>> numbersystem 0.999... do not equal 1, because you can not create the
> >>>> set that makes up 1 adding the members of the set ->
> >>>> {0.9,0.09,0.009  ...}!= 1 there is no set at this form that equals 1,
> >>>> but in ternarys we have no problem to write that the sum of members in
> >>>> the set {0.1,0.1,0.1} = 1

>
> >>> And of course the sum of members in the set
> >>> {0.333...,0.333...,0,333...}!=1 since 1/3 can not be expressed in
> >>> decimal change base use ternary or use fractions. The label 0.333...
> >>> express a number that is not available in decimal base, since it is
> >>> impossible to partition a single natural entity in such away that 1/3
> >>> is reached.

>
> >> Plato did understand the difference between naturals and the parts
> >> that make them up alot better then modern mathematicians, thus he
> >> understood the  principles of partitioning and thus recognized that
> >> fractions was the only way to deal with decimal expansion with out
> >> losing digits since there is no base system that can express all
> >> possible fractions.

>
> > And the truth that Plato understood but that modern mathematicians
> > clueless about is that naturals is a countable bottom up approach thus
> > they must be discrete in nature, and following this that each natural
> > have a magnitude that could be partitioned, but he also understood the
> > drawbacks of using a base for partition because he realised that in a
> > continum there is an endless amount cuts can be made and there is no
> > single base number system that can express them all, and from that he
> > draw the conclusion that fractions was the only way to deal with parts
> > of a single discrete natural entity.

>
> You really just go on and on...
>
> Like the energizer bunny.
>
> Aristotle disagreed with Plato long before Western mathematics
> considered the possibility of 0.  Since Aristotle, at least,
> mathematicians have had to make choices as to whose authority
> they would follow if they chose not to follow their own ideas.
>
> Even then, the very words you use in your criticisms probably
> originate from the work of Vieta (one must have polynomials
> before one recognizes the general form of a base).  It is with
> Vieta that geometric magnitudes and monadic units are treated
> uniformly as numbers.
>
> You need to make your criticisms without using the mathematics
> with which you disagree.


You need two lines of code to change the following standard
basechanging(not quite) algorithm to output NyaN bases instead of
standard bases.
Try it out and do the change.
Change bases
http://www.anybase.co.nf/

All bases can of course convert decimals into the base, but why
partitiong parts of naturals into limited accuracy using bases in
first place when fractions superior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg