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: Matheology § 430
Replies: 28   Last Post: Feb 12, 2014 4:06 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de

Posts: 555
Registered: 10/18/08
Re: Matheology § 430
Posted: Feb 10, 2014 12:22 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Am Montag, 10. Februar 2014 15:32:56 UTC+1 schrieb thenewc...@gmail.com:


> For example: lim (x->oo) (1-1/(10^x)) = 1 does not mean the expression (1-1/(10^x)) ever attains the value of 1. It NEVER does!

True.


> It means that no matter how large x becomes, the value of the expression can never attain the value of 1.

I see you do not like to call expressions with infinite sequences of non-zero-digits numbers. That is correct, in principle, because without actual infinity, which is a self-contradictory concept, there is always a difference between 0.999... and 1. The idea that "in the infinite" the complete sequence of nines could be used as a substitution for 1.000... has deplorably lead to Cantor's mistake.

Nevertheless we can understand "0.999..." as a shorthand for "the supremum of the increasing sequence
0.9
0.99
0.999
..."
i.e., for the smallest number that will never be surpassed, not even be reached. And that is 1 with no doubt. To call it a number is a matter of taste or convenience. You can simply use it as a definition. Then nothing need be proved.

Regards, WM




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.