Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<uujta9$mqo$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Definition_of_real_number_=E2=84=9D_--infinitesimal?= =?UTF-8?Q?--?= Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:40:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 84 Message-ID: <uujta9$mqo$2@dont-email.me> References: <bebe16f4f02eed7ac4e4d815dc0e1e98f9f0f2a0.camel@gmail.com> <87sf08qzt5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uu7q21$k72e$1@dont-email.me> <uu8vf8$vsq2$1@dont-email.me> <uu95mr$114hv$5@dont-email.me> <uu9q43$16c9d$2@dont-email.me> <uu9qqn$16gt9$1@dont-email.me> <uu9s39$16gks$1@dont-email.me> <uu9sj2$16rdo$1@dont-email.me> <uucbe9$1utsv$2@dont-email.me> <uucc0e$1v1p5$1@dont-email.me> <uucdd7$1v8hd$1@dont-email.me> <uucec3$1vh78$1@dont-email.me> <uudnt6$2bun2$1@dont-email.me> <uuegit$2hjc8$1@dont-email.me> <uuev15$2l64e$2@dont-email.me> <uuevt5$2laff$1@dont-email.me> <8734s4r84s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uufhse$2pgbg$1@dont-email.me> <87ttkkpn9y.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <7jOdnYS6Ff5EhJH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87le5vpqiy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uuhk45$3bqb2$1@dont-email.me> <uuj471$3qboe$2@dont-email.me> <uujris$6e0$2@dont-email.me> <uujsnj$g6p$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 15:40:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bfbe230f41d733c8e8d14e4fa12c421a"; logging-data="23384"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/M5juN5tqE552oZElgv+CL" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:lak0HbtPROo+2neMoY02O7bY80M= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <uujsnj$g6p$2@dont-email.me> Bytes: 5645 On 4/3/2024 10:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.apr.2024 om 17:11 schreef olcott: >> On 4/3/2024 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 02.apr.2024 om 20:51 schreef olcott: >>>> On 4/2/2024 1:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>>>>> On 02/04/2024 02:27, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> On 4/1/2024 6:11 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> Since PI is represented by a single geometric point on the >>>>>>>>>> number line >>>>>>>>>> then 0.999... would be correctly represented by the geometric >>>>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>>>> immediately to the left of 1.0 on the number line or the RHS >>>>>>>>>> of this >>>>>>>>>> interval [0,0, 1.0). If there is no Real number at that point >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> there is no Real number that exactly represents 0.999... >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> In the following I'm talking about real numbers, and only real >>>>>>>>> numbers -- not hyperreals, or surreals, or any other extension >>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>> real numbers. >>>>>>>>> You assert that there is a geometric point immediately to the left >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> 1.0 on the number line. (I disagree, but let's go with it for >>>>>>>>> now.) >>>>>>>>> Am I correct in assuming that this means that that point >>>>>>>>> corresponds >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> a real number that is distinct from, and less than, 1.0? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IDK, probably not. I am saying that 0.999... exactly equals this >>>>>>>> number. >>>>>>> "IDK, probably not." >>>>>>> Did you even consider taking some time to *think* about this? >>>>>> >>>>>> PO just says things he thinks are true based on his first intuitions >>>>>> when he encountered a topic. He does not "reason" his way to a new >>>>>> carefully thought out theory or even to a single coherent idea. Don't >>>>>> imagine he is thinking of hyperreals or anything - he just "knows" >>>>>> that obviously any number which starts 0.??? is less than one >>>>>> starting >>>>>> 1.??? - because 0 is less than 1 !! Or whatever, it really doesn't >>>>>> matter. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think he's explicitly said that any real number whose decimal >>>>> representation starts with "0." is less than one starting with "1." -- >>>>> but if said that, he'd be right. >>>>> >>>>> What he refuses to understand is that the notation "0.999..." is not a >>>>> decimal representation. The "..." notation refers to the limit of a >>>>> sequence, and of course the limit of a sequence does not have to be a >>>>> member of the sequence. Every member of the sequence (0.9, 0.99, >>>>> 0.999, >>>>> 0.9999, continuing in the obvious manner) is a real (and rational) >>>>> number that is strictly less than 1.0. But the limit of the >>>>> sequence is >>>>> 1.0. Sequences and their limits can be and are defined rigorously >>>>> without reference to infinitesimals or infinities, >>>>> >>>> >>>> In other words when we pretend that this never ending sequence ends >>>> 0.999... ends then we do get to 1.0. >>> >>> Again fighting windmills. Nobody said the sequence ends. That is >>> olcott's own interpretation which he wants to fight. >>> >> >> 0.999... The LFS remains infinitesimally less than 1.0 > > Fighting windmills again. Fighting his own interpretation of 0.999... > Unable to understand the normal interpretation, even when spelled out in > detail. > When it is conventional to lie, I tell the truth. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer