Re: .999... ?= 1

From: Herman Jurjus (h.jurjus_at_hetnet.nl)
Date: 06/07/04 

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:08:15 +0200

"Eckard Blumschein" <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:40C439B6.90002@et.uni-magdeburg.de...
[snip]

> >> I see zero having three aspects of equal value but different sign:
> >> minus 0.0 over bar
> >> just zero
> >> plus 0.0 over bar.
> >
[snip]
> >> Both the negative and the positive description, from the left and from
> >> the right, respectively are identical with just zero.
[snip]
> While I do not expect people like Chapman who are specialized in theory
> of numbers fighting for what they were thought by all means. I hope you
> will be more independent, in principle. Do not consider it an attack on
> numbers like 0 and 1 if I try to add some subtleties. Since language of
> mathematics has failed for centuries to satisfactory resolve the
> issue, it might be worth pondering about alternatives. What does +0
> mean? How does it differ from -0? We agree about the identity of their
> value zero, no matter whether it is seen from the left or from the right.

Do you happen to know the book "Inconsistent
Mathematics", by Chris Mortensen?
Unfortunately, i couldn't get my hands on it, yet,
but from reviews:
The function such that f(x) = 0 for x < 0 and
f(x) = 1 for x > 0 can be turned (according to the
book) into a _continuous_ function, by defining
both f(0) = 0 and f(0) = 1. The rather flagrant
contradiction ( 0 = f(0) = 1 ) is made harmless,
by using a non-standard logic (a 'paraconsistent'
logic = logic in which the ex-falso-quodlibet rule
fails).
They claim this leads to very handy calculus
rules in applied situations.

Is this close to what you have in mind?

Cheers,
Herman Jurjus

Relevant Pages