Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: There is No quantity inbetween .9 repeating and 1
Posted:
Oct 3, 2017 4:36 PM


On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:55:21 PM UTC7, John Gabriel wrote: > On Monday, 2 October 2017 14:21:32 UTC4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:15:26 AM UTC7, John Gabriel wrote: > > > On Sunday, 1 October 2017 22:04:50 UTC5, 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 illformed concept and Euler's Blunder.
The infinitely small difference for them needs to defined .9 repeating to 1



