Re: .999... ?= 1
From: Robin Chapman (rjc_at_ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 06/09/04
- Next message: |-|erc: "Re: The flight of a spinning table-tennis ball"
- Previous message: TimR: "Re: The flight of a spinning table-tennis ball"
- 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: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:27:55 +0100
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
> Robin Chapman wrote:
>
>> Your handling of zero is ceertinly uncertain.
>>
>> Is "infinity" actually a number?
>
> I know that there is seemingly no need for treating it like a number
> while this status is commonly attributed to its reciprocal. I vaguely
> recall: Only a few experts do not consider zero a number. Is this correct?
The only people whom I have come across who object to zero
being a "number" I would categorize as "imbeciles" not "experts".
> Do not object against zero as the reciprocal. I know.
>
>
>> Bravo! You might like to read up on the "balanced ternary"
>> number system :-)
>
> Is it of any importance?
I thought it was of potential interest to you :-)
-- 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_
- Next message: |-|erc: "Re: The flight of a spinning table-tennis ball"
- Previous message: TimR: "Re: The flight of a spinning table-tennis ball"
- 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
|