Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
That is a property of the numbers 0.9, 0.99, 0.999 and soYes.Yet it seems that wij is correct that 0.999... would seem toThat /cannot/ be correct in the "real" numbers, in which there
be infinitesimally < 1.0.
are no infinitesimals [basic axiom of the reals]. In other systems of
numbers, it could be correct,but that will depend on what is meant byApproaching yet never reaching 1.0.
"0.999..",
Again, there are no infinite or infinitesimal real numbers, soand note that if you appeal to something that mentions limits
to define this, then you have to explain how infinite and infinitesimal
numbers are handled in the definition.
I didn't ask what "geometric point" and "number line" are, butOf course by geometric point I must mean a box of chocolates and byOne geometric point on the number line.Until you describe the axioms of what you mean by "geometric
[0.0, 1.0) < [0.0, 1.0] by one geometric point.
point" and "number line", this is meaningless verbiage. Give your
number line I mean a pretty pink bow. No one would ever suspect that
these terms have their conventional meanings.
But "one geometric point" has measure zero. Not "never actuallyaxioms, and it becomes possible to discuss this. Until then, we areYet it is never actually zero because it is possible to specify a
entitled to assume that you and Wij are talking about the "traditional"
"real" numbers [as used in engineering, etc.] in which there are no
infinitesimals, and so the only interpretation we can make of the size
of "one geometric point" is the usual "measure", which is zero.
line segment that is exactly one geometric point longer than another.
[0.0, 1.0] - [0.0, 1.0) = one geometric point.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.