Re: .999... ?= 1

From: Robin Chapman (rjc_at_ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 06/10/04

Next message: Donald G. Shead: "Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet"
Previous message: William Elliot: "Re: proove that n^4 + n is never prime"
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: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:47:22 +0100

Eckard Blumschein 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.

Unfortunate? Would it be fortunate for zero to be the only number?

-- 
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: Donald G. Shead: "Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet"
Previous message: William Elliot: "Re: proove that n^4 + n is never prime"
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

Re: .999... ?= 1
... Robin Chapman wrote: ... Would it be fortunate for zero to be the only number? ... Of course I meant just zero out of the twins 0 and oo. ...
(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: .999... ?= 1
... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... > Johan Kullstam wrote: ... I am not aware of any field with zero distance berween its elements. ... >> You can add an infinite number of infinite quantities if you like. ...
(sci.math)