Re: Does the number of nines increase?

On 7/15/2024 7:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 7/15/2024 6:57 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 16.07.2024 um 03:49 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 7/15/2024 6:47 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 16.07.2024 um 03:32 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>

going left to right, so to speak, [...]
>
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...

>
Nope, here you are going "from right to left" (on the real line).
>
You see, 1/1 is larger than, say, 1/2, hence on "the real line" 1/1 is RIGHT from 1/2. No?
>
Hint:
>
... | ... | ... | ... (real line)
>
     0    1/2   1/1 (=1)
>

Huh? WM is backwards?

>
Actually, not. :-)
>

Actually, my real line is, say
>
...-1...0...+1...

>
>
Seems poor. :-P
>
Let's fill in some unit fractions (at least 1/2). :-)
>
...| ... | ... | ... | ...       (real line)
   -1     0    1/2   1/1 (=1)
>

So, left to right with origin at zero [...] the natural numbers, starting at zero the origin of the real line:
>
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

>
Right. But ALL unit fractions are between 0 and 1 (incl.). :-)
>

0 is at origin point on my real line, the x axis so to speak. It has an origin at 0. Fair enough?

>
Sure. Why do you ask? :-P
>

Left of zero, or origin if you will, is negative, right of zero is positive...

>
Yeah.
>
And between 0 and 1 (=1/1) there are the unit fractions 1/2, 1/3, ...:
>
0 < ... < 1/3 < 1/2 < 1/1 .
>
See? :-P
>
>
>
>

 I see that you increased the granularity from natural numbers into the unit fractions...
 Wrt enumeration unit fractions I like to go from 1/1, to 1/2, to 1/3, ect... Is that wrong? There is no way to go the other way because then we have to think of a a smallest unit fraction, WM world, right?

What about a special real line with unit fraction granularity, and signs?
(-) ... <-(1/2)<-(1/1)<-(0)->+(1/1)->+(1/2)-> ... (+)
Ahh, this is backwards? Shit!