Re: .999... ?= 1
From: Lance Lamboy (lance.lamboy_at_lamboy.nospam.com)
Date: 06/07/04
- Next message: David Eppstein: "Re: Equal sums of parts"
- Previous message: Lee Rudolph: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Reply: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:59:32 -0400
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:45:15 +0100, Eckard Blumschein wrote:
> Lee Rudolph wrote:
>
>>>Well, in IR or Q any exact number is a fictitious one in so far it just
>>>occupies an infinitesimal small range between its neighbours.
>>
>>
>> To the extent that this statement is meaningful, it is false.
>
> From the perspective of a number per se your refusal is understandable.
> I did not clearly enough express that I meant the practical localization
> of the position corresponding to an exact number.
Since when did numbers have perspectives? Do numbers feel hope,
happiness, love, or pain? What other human attributes do numbers have?
<snip>
Lance Lamboy
- Next message: David Eppstein: "Re: Equal sums of parts"
- Previous message: Lee Rudolph: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Reply: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|