Re: .999... ?= 1

From: Virgil (ITSnetNOTcom/virgil_at_COMCAST.com)
Date: 06/10/04 

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:06:06 -0600

In article <40C81887.5090601@et.uni-magdeburg.de>,
 Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:

> 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.
>
>

But if you do away with zero, then you automatically do away too with
all "numbers" that need the digit zero in their decimal representation,
which would leave an immense number of ponderable excisions in the
"real" line.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... > which would leave an immense number of ponderable excisions in the ... I do not throw away zero. ... approximate reals. ...
    (sci.math)