Re: .999... ?= 1
From: Eckard Blumschein (blumschein_at_et.uni-magdeburg.de)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: DanKage: "Re: irreducible polynomial"
- Previous message: Daniel Grubb: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- In reply to: Virgil: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:23:23 +0100
Virgil wrote:
> 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.
Fist: I do not throw away zero. I merely say there is no actually
accessible real "number" zero but scores of doubles instead. So I do not
have to bother about the possibility to simply separate the reals in
positive ans negative one with nothing, in other words with -0.0 oberbar
= +0.0 overbar in between.
Second: Our decimal system uses integers including zero as to
approximate reals.
Third: Removal of a finite number of real "numbers" from Q or R does not
harm the continuum at all. In order to get a deficite, one would have to
remove infinitely much.
Eckard Blumschein
- Next message: DanKage: "Re: irreducible polynomial"
- Previous message: Daniel Grubb: "Re: Peano's space-filling curve"
- In reply to: Virgil: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: .999... ?= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|