Sujet : Re: Definition of real number ℝ --infinitesimal--
De : Keith.S.Thompson+u (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Keith Thompson)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 03. Apr 2024, 22:09:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : None to speak of
Message-ID : <878r1ujjhs.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
olcott <
polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
On 4/3/2024 12:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> writes:
[...]
Olcott is unable to understand what it says in the context of the
real number system, even when spelled out to him in great
detail. Therefore he sticks to his own (wrong) interpretation and then
starts to fight it. Fighting windmills.
Might I suggest waiting to reply to olcott until he says something
*new*. It could save a lot of time and effort.
>
0.999... everyone knows that this means infinitely repeating digits
that never reach 1.0 and lies about it. I am not going to start lying
about it.
(I don't read everything olcott writes, but that *might* be something
new.)
Nobody here is lying. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)
Some people here are wrong.
You might take a moment to think about *why* so many people would be
motivated to lie about something like this. Is it really plausible
that multiple people (a) know in their hearts that you're right,
but (b) deliberately pretend that you're wrong?
I'm not asking you to share your thoughts, just to think about it.
I've seen you accuse others here of lying and later acknowledge
that they were not. I have never seen you demonstrate that anyone
else was actually lying (i.e., spreading deliberate falsehoods).
Stop accusing others of lying. It never ends well for you.
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.comWorking, but not speaking, for Medtronicvoid Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */