Re: .999... ?= 1

From: Robin Chapman (rjc_at_ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 06/08/04 

Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:28:21 +0100

Eckard Blumschein wrote:
>
> Setting an epsilon makes sense as to decide to neglect what remains.
> Nonetheless, _any_ (even the smallest imaginable) non-zero epsilon
> still contains infinitely much of numbers.

Category mistake.

Epsilon is conventionally used as a symbol for a real number.
Real numbers do not "contain" things let alone "infinitely much
of numbers". 

-- 
Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"Lacan, Jacques, 79, 91-92; mistakes his penis for a square root, 88-9"
Francis Wheen, _How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World_

Relevant Pages

  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... In sci.math, Eckard Blumschein ... Given any epsilon, I can give an N such that the ... > Why not deconstruct quite a bit of calculus if necessary ... someone spoke of a fundamental crisis ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... A single real epsilon "contains" only one number, ... does separate all other reals into those above it and those below it. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote in message> I would like to object: Nobody can give a concrete epsilon being small ... You are forgetting that an arbitrary epsilon can be much of a muchness ...
    (sci.math)