Re: .999... ?= 1

From: Robin Chapman (rjc_at_ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 06/09/04 

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:39:26 +0100

Eckard Blumschein wrote:

> I apologize for underestimating you. Well: Cauchy, Dedekind, and
> Weierstrass led to the present tenets preferenig just zero as a number.

Actually all of them preferred not just zero to be 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
    ... Robin Chapman wrote: ... > Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... >>Weierstrass led to the present tenets preferenig just zero as a number. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... Infinity has nothing to do with it. ... In finite rings, both are irrelevant, but the issue of division by zero ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... > Being a layman, I looked for such definition and was disappointed, too. ... not reciprocals. ... > Also I was told that zero is not necessarily a number, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... And it's my gut feeling that we've all heard too much piffle ... I get it at last --- for some reason it offends you that zero ... I've seen plenty of nonsense here. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Weierstrass
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... > Isn't the mathematical meaning: Zero is included as well as excluded? ... > and excluded do contradict in mathematics too, ...
    (sci.math)