Re: .999... ?= 1

From: Virgil (ITSnetNOTcom/virgil_at_COMCAST.com)
Date: 06/04/04


Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:19:37 -0600

In article <40C05CE0.4040400@et.uni-magdeburg.de>,
 Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:

> On the contrary. A number is not represented by a finite series but by
> an infinite one. This makes the difference.
>
> Eckard Blumschein

Actually, each of the natural numbers, including zero in modern usage,
is represented by a finite series of digits, at least in standard
decimal notation.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... In finite rings, both are irrelevant, but the issue of division by zero ... course pathways of infinite length. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... In finite rings, both are irrelevant, but the issue of division by zero ... course pathways of infinite length. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... Infinity has nothing to do with it. ... In finite rings, both are irrelevant, but the issue of division by zero ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... > Being a layman, I looked for such definition and was disappointed, too. ... not reciprocals. ... > Also I was told that zero is not necessarily a number, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... And it's my gut feeling that we've all heard too much piffle ... I get it at last --- for some reason it offends you that zero ... I've seen plenty of nonsense here. ...
    (sci.math)

Quantcast