Personally........ my understanding of ... would imply that 1 = 0.999999 .... But what do I know....... I would be honored to get your response to a Mathematics, Physics and Geology problem that has been annoying me for several months now? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ten-cms-3-or-4-inches-could-high-tide.543690/
Hey! Cool application of set theory! Irrational numbers aren't countable. Had the same kind of problem been defined in terms of rational numbers, the outcome would be different, as it would be a different order of infinity.
Not really. All you need are rational numbers. But you are correct that the set of Real numbers are uncountable and the rational numbers are. There is some set theory as the demonstration relies on the fact that the real numbers (and the rational numbers) are dense. Between any two real numbers there are an infinite number of real numbers. The same is true of the rational numbers. My explanation is just an informal rendering of the definition of the limit of an infinite series, in this case the infinite sum: .9 +.09 + .009 ... People innocent of calculus won't get this. For those who know it, it is obvious.
Any equation done on a calculator or computer will provide you the evidence you need. Theoretical numbers have no place within the confines of the practical world. Your .9999 simply cannot exist in the world of computers, nor does it. The theory has outlasted its usefulness and should be put to rest now. Theoretical math is pointless...
x = the first atrophy of 1. When infinity ends, 1 degrades through natural atrophy, and .99999 is the first step, it would take a reverse infinity for it to fully catch up. Although, first you'd have to prove infinity exists in the first place...
100% wrong. Computers can handle repeating decimals. So can scientific calculators. And that would not be evidence of what you are saying anyway...you just said that if we change the number (by truncating it), then the result is not equal. And I asked for one equation. On page one, you claimed such an equation exists. We are now on page 3, and you have yet to produce it, much less any argument to support your incorrect statement. You cannot, because no such equation exists. You are wrong, and it really does not matter of you admit it or not.
