Re: Cantor Diagonal Proof

On 08/04/2025 15:25, wij wrote:

On Tue, 2025-04-08 at 09:29 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 08/04/2025 08:31, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-07 10:31:28 +0000, wij said:
>

On Mon, 2025-04-07 at 11:28 +0300, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-06 10:42:05 +0000, wij said:
>

On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 13:35 +0300, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-06 07:15:51 +0000, wij said:
>

Simply put, repeating decimals are irrational.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/RealNumber2-en.txt/download
>
>

>
Repeating decimals are rational.

>
Prove it (be sure not to make mistakes shown in the link above)

>
See>
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/549254/why-is-a-repeating-decimal-a-rational-number

>
Still can't prove, except posting a copy from the internet?

>
So you are only trolling?

>
Hasn't he just proved that by claiming that recurring decimals
are irrational? 1/3, 1/7, 1/11, 1/13, 1/17... all irrational!

 Just remind you, your post showed that you don't understand 1. what the definition
is. 2. what a proof should be (the above statement is another evidence).
3. your understand is 'by belief'.

I presume you are aware that your claim that recurring decimals are irrational flies in the face of mainstream mathematics. That of itself doesn't make you wrong, but if you want to persuade people that you have a case you're going a very odd way about it.
To start with, do you consider 1 and 3 to be integers? If not, why not?
Next, do you agree that the ratio of an integer to a (non-0) integer is rational? If not, what do /you/ mean by 'rational', and why should people use your definition instead of the usual one?
Next, please demonstrate how you calculate the decimal expansion of 1/3 without incurring a recurring decimal.
I'll wait.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within