Re: .999... = 1
- From: Robert Low <mtx014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:48:43 +0100
David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:02:59 +0100, Robert Low <mtx014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>That's pretty much it: you can think of a real number as precisely being an equivalence class of Cauchy sequences of rationals.OK, so it's a sequence of rationals that tends to 1.However, to me, .99999... represents a sequence that tends to 1, rather than 1.No, 0.999... is most certainly not a sequence of rationals. It is the limit of a certain sequence of rationals.
Eventually it is. But surely 0.999... means 'the real number defined by the Cauchy sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999 ...', since we have to make sense of the infinite sum. And reals are defined as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals, so we have a Cauchy sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999 etc which lies in the same equivalence class as the Cauchy sequence 1,1,1 etc, so they represent the same real.
Unless, of course, you think of the reals as the unique complete ordered field... .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: .999... = 1
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: .999... = 1
- From: Jim Spriggs
- Re: .999... = 1
- References:
- .999... = 1
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: .999... = 1
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: .999... = 1
- From: Ken Quirici
- Re: .999... = 1
- From: Robert Low
- Re: .999... = 1
- From: David C . Ullrich
- .999... = 1
- Prev by Date: Re: Non-standard models of PA
- Next by Date: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Previous by thread: Re: .999... = 1
- Next by thread: Re: .999... = 1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|