Sujet : Re: Definition of real number ℝ --infinitesimal--
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 04. Apr 2024, 00:07:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <uukjut$3vota$4@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/3/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
TOO LATE, you just did, perhaps out of utter stupidity, but since you have been instructed about it, it is still a lie.
…