Re: Definition of real number ℝ --infinitesimal--

"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> writes:

It is only impossible for olcott because olcott seems to be unable to
learn what 0.999... = 1.0 means for real numbers. He sticks to another
interpretation and is not able to reason in the context of real
numbers, even when olcott's interpretation has contradictory
consequences.

This is was Usenet maths cranks do!  All the recent 0.(9) = 1 "deniers"
(WM, PO and Wij) have been more of less clear (at one tie or another)
that they consider 0.(9) to denote sequence (or sometimes a series) and
not the number -- the least upper bound -- that everyone else means by
the notation.  It always comes down to definitions in the end.

Of course, to keep the discussion going (and it's telling people who
know more than they do that they are wrong that motivates the whole
project) they have to flip-flop about that or there would be no
disagreement.

--
Ben.