Re: .999... ?= 1
mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Date: 06/02/04
- Next message: Mike H: "Some easy problems"
- Previous message: Stephen Montgomery-Smith: "Re: Fourier transform of non-negative function"
- In reply to: Maxi: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Keith A. Lewis: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:08:05 +0000 (UTC)
In article <40bdfeab$0$13927$636a15ce@news.free.fr>,
"Maxi" <aries-mu-de-cheval@narod.ru> writes:
>> Ok, ok, calm down, folks. Yes, I know .999... = 1. But certain friends
>> of mine don't, so if a few mathematicians here could just confirm that
>> with a post or two, that would be great, thanks ;) I'm not trying to
>> waste anyone's time, but I've about given up proving this to them, and
>> one of them commented that he won't believe it until a PhD says it's
>> true.
How odd! We get an unusually long 0.999...-free period, and then suddenly
two references are posted within hours of each other.
If you had been keeping up with that other thread, then you would know that
there is a proof (or maybe it was a disproof) involving Buridan's donkey,
but it only works if you use American-style spellings.
Derek Holt.
- Next message: Mike H: "Some easy problems"
- Previous message: Stephen Montgomery-Smith: "Re: Fourier transform of non-negative function"
- In reply to: Maxi: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Keith A. Lewis: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
