Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Moebius <invalid@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Does the number of nines increase?
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 02:03:45 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <v6n7h1$2436g$2@dont-email.me>
References: <tJf9P9dALSN4l2XH5vdqPbXSA7o@jntp>
 <206ac30e-6ba5-46f2-978e-59182f946547@att.net>
 <ua_dk69eQeSqktCTQNG3SNIblRg@jntp>
 <38fbe173-2081-49a4-89d5-d1470f754565@att.net>
 <hAhJQ7nieohA_6mzxTp_Pm537J8@jntp>
 <69d5b220-850b-4faa-b9b4-b25cd74d1666@att.net>
 <iXwHO-pH72dPrRO8fKLu73u-pDc@jntp> <v6etjs$f608$6@dont-email.me>
 <rOlUS7lI7QcAQJM95Z2fo8X09x0@jntp> <v6etov$f604$2@dont-email.me>
 <02WQWLab8x41L6XRW0n7Ba0poZ8@jntp> <v6iaf6$18428$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6j2cm$1bggk$1@dont-email.me> <v6k5fj$1gsq2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6k8rg$1hehh$1@dont-email.me> <v6kacc$1ho2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6kb9f$1hehi$2@dont-email.me> <v6n02q$231iu$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6n0mu$22nd0$5@dont-email.me> <v6n1q7$22opo$9@dont-email.me>
 <v6n3gg$22ncv$4@dont-email.me> <v6n604$23rhi$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: invalid@example.invalid
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 02:03:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b43c9dd34f25362f42493cf5322921d";
	logging-data="2231504"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bOtE2BuLPcOzac0jmafVO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sJoNxVcy9iGiMR96vJnaLpcz2i4=
In-Reply-To: <v6n604$23rhi$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: de-DE
Bytes: 2919

Am 11.07.2024 um 01:37 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 7/10/2024 3:55 PM, Moebius wrote:
>> Am 11.07.2024 um 00:26 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>
>>> (1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ...)
>>>
>>> For each element [term] [in (1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ...)] there is a rational that can represent it.
>>
>> Well, A = A? Agree!

Hint: All elements/terms in (1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, ...) are rational 
numbers. :-)

> Should I add in the word finite here:
> 
> For each _finite_ element there is a rational that can represent it.

Nope. After all, each and every element (term) in (1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, 
....) is "finite" (sort of).*)

So you wont't get anything (meaningful) by adding "finite" in this context.

> Any clearer, or does it add mud to the clear waters?

It's just "superfluous" (imho). :-P

>>> No single rational can represent the whole...
>>
>> Right!
>>
>> Otherwise the question would be: Which one? :-)
>>
>>> However, a real can represent [...] the whole... 
>>
>> Exactly! (!!!)
>>
>>> Fair enough?
>>
>> Sure!

See?!

__________________________________

*) i.e. is equal to to some n/m where n,m e IN.