Re: .999... ?= 1

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:26:42 +0100

Robin Chapman 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?

Of course I meant just zero out of the twins 0 and oo.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dict CALL routine to return MV data
    ... It is unfortunate, but I don't think a D3 call correlative will return ... value-delimited data. ... usually end up putting a 0 (zero) in field of the calling dict ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: .999... ?= 1
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... >> Actually all of them preferred not just zero to be numbers. ... Unfortunate? ... Would it be fortunate for zero to be the only number? ...
    (sci.math)
  • divisors of zero
    ... If you can get the URL above to work you can see that Robin Chapman and ... John Rickard found divisors of zero for B_5 numbers in about a day. ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)
  • Re: Treating Magnitude as Fundamental
    ... at this newsgroup years ago, ... Robin Chapman who pointed out that ... and then use componentwise multiplication ... has only positive numbers (and zero) - another safety. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Musings on taking offense
    ... You care to explain how that verbose line of crap had anything to do ... with my comments about $Zero being fortunate? ...  Or was it just a handy ...
    (misc.writing)