Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v5pna5$2b21$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: Does the number of nines increase? Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 12:29:08 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 17 Message-ID: <v5pna5$2b21$2@dont-email.me> References: <tJf9P9dALSN4l2XH5vdqPbXSA7o@jntp> <eZZGYbe53s6yBDBqGuTMM_Z1y7A@jntp> <v5lspm$1bs52$2@i2pn2.org> <HlcnRXFQ42qMfnJgEw40TN7tXjI@jntp> <v5mriv$1d3t3$7@i2pn2.org> <v5msu8$3ena6$1@dont-email.me> <7kWvquYAIwnpmJER42BML2v7650@jntp> <v5n8c3$3gth7$1@dont-email.me> <OZWcnZ95r_FOwOL7nZ2dnZfqn_gAAAAA@giganews.com> <v5okju$3s2o5$1@dont-email.me> <FT8a4DhRbwojKFSQC8A_96QDrbs@jntp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 21:29:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1dec0191834013eb7d293450cfe2cb7e"; logging-data="76865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Kp04wsb5tIDT2JwBtDowsYbW9+URovfk=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:DN9499TqJep9Ki6oJuLOcjL/9Bg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <FT8a4DhRbwojKFSQC8A_96QDrbs@jntp> Bytes: 1908 On 6/29/2024 10:10 AM, WM wrote: > Le 29/06/2024 à 11:37, FromTheRafters a écrit : >> Ross Finlayson pretended : > >>> You know, or it "goes" to. >> >> Yes, but the number of nines in the sequence after the radix point is >> countably infinite rather than finite, hence NaN in this context. > > All nines are from the sequence 0.9, 0.09, 0.009, ... None of the ℵo > nines makes its partial sum 0,9, 0.99, 0.999, ... equal to 1. ℵo nines > fail. a = 1/9 = .(1) = (.111...) b = a * 9 = 1