Re: .999... ?= 1
From: Virgil (ITSnetNOTcom/virgil_at_COMCAST.com)
Date: 06/04/04
- Next message: Robert Israel: "Re: definition of polar norm?"
- Previous message: Richard Tobin: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Lance Lamboy: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Reply: Lance Lamboy: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Reply: Acid Pooh: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
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.
- Next message: Robert Israel: "Re: definition of polar norm?"
- Previous message: Richard Tobin: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Lance Lamboy: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Reply: Lance Lamboy: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Reply: Acid Pooh: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|