Re: Repeating decimals are irrational

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Repeating decimals are irrational
De : Keith.S.Thompson+u (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Keith Thompson)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 27. Mar 2024, 03:29:18
Autres entêtes
Organisation : None to speak of
Message-ID : <87msqktqc1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 18:11 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 17:53 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 17:28 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
So you're saying that 0.333... is not exactly equal to 1/3.
 
It seems odd that you agree that 0.999... is exactly equal to 1, but
0.333... is not exactly equal to 1/3.
 
 
I say the limit of 0.999... is 1, not 0.999... is 1. (this is also what you asked)
Read the definition carefully from trustworthy website.
 
So you're distinguishing between "the limit of 0.999..." and "0.999...".
 
I see no difference between them.  To me, the "..." notation *means* the
limit.  Can you explain what difference you see?
 
When I write "0.999...", I mean the limit as the number of 9s increases
without bound.  That limit, I think we both agree, is equal to 1.  And
perhaps we also both agree that the limit of 0.333... as the number of
3s increases without bound is equal to 1/3.
 
Are you saying that:
 
- 0.999... is something other than the limit as the number of 9s
  increases without bound?
 
Don't know what you are asking for
 
I don't know how to explain it more clearly.
 
We've both been using notations like "0.999...".  I've been using it to
mean exactly the limit as the number of 9s increases without bound.
That particular limit is exactly equal to 1.
 
Prove it. I don't think you understand what you say even though we both agree on this part.

I am not ready to offer a rigorous proof until and unless we agree on
some key concepts.  I might not do so even then, for reasons I explained
earlier.

You apparently mean something other than that limit when you write
"0.999...".  I'm asking you what you mean by "0.999...", and in
particular how that differs from the described limit.
>
If you cannot tell the difference, what can I say, and what can you expect?
Go home and learn more.

I'm asking what the difference is *to you*.  What do *YOU* mean by
0.999...?  The only possible way I can learn that is for you to tell me.
If you're unwilling to do so, we can end this discussion.

[snip]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Date Sujet#  Auteur
26 Mar 24 * Repeating decimals are irrational35wij
26 Mar 24 +* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational24Keith Thompson
26 Mar 24 i`* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational23wij
26 Mar 24 i `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational22Keith Thompson
26 Mar 24 i  `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational21wij
26 Mar 24 i   `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational20Keith Thompson
26 Mar 24 i    +- Re: Repeating decimals are irrational PLO1olcott
26 Mar 24 i    `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational18wij
27 Mar 24 i     `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational17Keith Thompson
27 Mar 24 i      `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational16wij
27 Mar 24 i       `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational15Keith Thompson
27 Mar 24 i        `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational14wij
27 Mar 24 i         `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational13Keith Thompson
27 Mar 24 i          `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational12wij
27 Mar 24 i           `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational11Keith Thompson
27 Mar 24 i            `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational10wij
27 Mar 24 i             `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational9Keith Thompson
27 Mar 24 i              `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational8wij
27 Mar 24 i               `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational7Keith Thompson
27 Mar 24 i                `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational6wij
27 Mar 24 i                 +* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational3Keith Thompson
27 Mar 24 i                 i`* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational2wij
27 Mar 24 i                 i `- Re: Repeating decimals are irrational1Keith Thompson
27 Mar 24 i                 `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational --agree--2olcott
27 Mar 24 i                  `- Re: Repeating decimals are irrational --agree--1wij
27 Mar 24 `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational10Richard Damon
27 Mar 24  +- Re: Repeating decimals are irrational1wij
28 Mar 24  `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational8wij
28 Mar 24   `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational7Richard Damon
28 Mar 24    `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational6wij
28 Mar 24     `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational5Richard Damon
28 Mar 24      `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational4wij
28 Mar 24       `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational3Richard Damon
28 Mar 24        `* Re: Repeating decimals are irrational2wij
28 Mar 24         `- Re: Repeating decimals are irrational1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal