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 difference between the two quantities. They are absolute next quantities to each 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