Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Re: Matheology sqrt(-2): WM admits to unlistability of 0/1 sequences
Replies: 2   Last Post: Dec 22, 2013 6:12 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
JT

Posts: 1,148
Registered: 4/7/12
Re: Matheology sqrt(-2): WM admits to unlistability of 0/1 sequences
Posted: Dec 22, 2013 5:45 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Den söndagen den 22:e december 2013 kl. 23:14:38 UTC+1 skrev Zeit Geist:
> On Sunday, December 22, 2013 1:30:06 PM UTC-7, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> > Den söndagen den 22:e december 2013 kl. 01:27:55 UTC+1 skrev Zeit Geist:
>
> >
>
> > > Jonas.t write:
>
> >
>
> > > > So is it possible the answer is never, and could the conclusion be that 0.999... not really equal to 1.
>
> >
>
> > > So then what does it equal?
>
> > > What is 1 - 0.999... equal to?
>
> > > It must be positive if 1 ~= 0.999... .
>
> > > But, if x is positive, then 0.999... + x is greater than 1.
>
> >
>
> > > ZG
>
> >
>
> > The correct answer to that question is a string of infinitly many zeros followed by a one.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Which is NOT a Real Number.
>
> The Decimal Sequence for Real Numbers ( between 0 and 1 ) have only 1 decimal place for each Natural Number.
>
>
>

> > Now i do not consider infinity to be numerical or having a magnitude, a limit is another thing.
>
> >
>
> > You see it is all very simple to be able to claim that 0.999... actually add up to 1. You must be able to prove that there is such x that 10^-x actually equals zero and i do not see how you can.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Why is that? You seem confused.
>
>
>

> > The use of ALL seem a little fuzzy since creating all is not reachable.
>
>
>
> The set of Natural Numbers reaches any finite n.
>
>
>

> > Take this computation when will it reach zero, the answer is never. There is no infinite sequense of 0.999... that will render a zero in the remainder, that is simple truth.
>
>
>
> Maybe because it's an Infinite Sequence?
>
>
>

> >
>
> > Bijective bases do not have that problem in any instance you just can add an A to tranform to raise the previous 9 to an A.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And since in bijective base 1 equals .A the problem could never occure as i see it 0.999... is the unfortunate result of t that 1/3 can not be expressed in using base 10 decimals.
>
> >
>
> > And it followed that 3*0.333... must have an answer.
>
> >
>
> > The simple truth is that you simple can not partiton 1/9, 1/3 in base ten decimals exactly.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not for a finite number of Decimal Places, but the Real Numbers are defined in Infinitelly many.
>

> >
>
> > The workround fix was to just stipulate and claim that they will if there is an infinite number of following 3s or 9s.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Because There Is! It's Not a "workround". It's a fact.
>

> >
>
> > But it simply not the truth.
>
> >
>
> > x=1;
>
> >
>
> > y=0.9
>
> >
>
> > while (x>0) {x=x-y; y=y/10;}
>
> >
>
> > Will Always give a none zero remainder.
>
>
>
> Because? I will let you figure it out.
>
>
>
> ZG


Because numbers are not made out of pink fairies?
Yes that may be the case so let me handle the numbers and you go play with the pink fairies.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.