Re: .999... ?= 1
From: Eckard Blumschein (blumschein_at_et.uni-magdeburg.de)
Date: 06/08/04
- Next message: Krunom: "Symmetry breaking: why???"
- Previous message: Tony Turner: "Re: A little offtopic"
- In reply to: Herman Jurjus: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Lothar Brendel: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:20:59 +0100
Herman Jurjus wrote:
>>>>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]
>
>>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?
The title sounds interesting. Our library doesn't have it.
> 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.
That is exactly what practice sometimes needs but gospel-like tenets do
not allow.
> 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).
If I recall correctly, quodlibet means whatever. People used to obey the
ban of division by zero. Why don't they accept that other rules also
fail at the infinitely small.
> They claim this leads to very handy calculus
> rules in applied situations.
>
> Is this close to what you have in mind?
Perhaps it is, at least as concerns the practical needs.
Thanks and Regards,
Eckard Blumschein
- Next message: Krunom: "Symmetry breaking: why???"
- Previous message: Tony Turner: "Re: A little offtopic"
- In reply to: Herman Jurjus: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Lothar Brendel: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|