Re: .999... ?= 1

From: Eckard Blumschein (blumschein_at_et.uni-magdeburg.de)
Date: 06/10/04 

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:15:03 +0100

Robin Chapman wrote:
> 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.

Yes, unfortunately but understandably.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... > 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 ...
    (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)