Re: .9999... = 1

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:56:52 -0500

On 29 Sep 2004 11:44:35 -0700, dwb1729@yahoo.com (David Bandel) wrote:

>poespam-trap@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.0409290630.dc6dc45@posting.google.com>...
>> David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<d93ll0d8lf6b04dfklengk4sdaq0a9hh5v@4ax.com>...
>> > The two other people who've *** in here also assumed
>> > that what you were inserting was what I thought, not
>> > what you were actually inserting, btw.
>>
>> As one of the ***-ers, I was merely commenting on
>> Bandel's inability to convert two sentences into
>> symbolic logic.
>>
>> He gave a statement "If X, then Y".
>>
>> He then gave another statement, "If ~Y, then ~X"
>> and claimed it was "If ~X, then ~Y", which was clearly
>> false given the definitions of X and Y.
>>
>> I was merely pointing out that X and Y had changed
>> definitions between the two symbolic statements.
>>
>> - Randy

Hmm. Glad Randy and Dave re-butted in, because I'd forgotten
the history. Your _current_ rewriting of what I said does
indeed contain a logical error (not that that has any
relevance to what I actually wrote), but you were quite
explicit earlier. You said this:

you:
> >> >> >well that's not very logical. you basiclaly said this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >a -> b is equivelant to ~a -> ~b
> >> >>
me:
> >> >> I did? Where?
you:
> >> >"x is a mathematician" -> "x doesn't find it ridiculous"
> >> >from this you proceeded to
> >> >"you see this is as ridiculous" -> "you are not a mathematematician"
> >> >that's where

>no.

Yes. What's above is a _quote_ from you, not a paraphrase or
my guess as to what you meant. You're saying quite explicitly
that going from a -> b to ~b -> ~a is wrong. And saying quite
explicitly that I deduced b -> a from a -> b, while giving
a paraphrase that's actually going from a -> b to ~b -> ~a.

>the fact that ~Y -> ~X is NOT equivelant to ~X -> ~Y is precisely
>what i've been stating here. read more carefully..

Guffaw. You think that nobody has the ability to look a few posts
up in the thread or what?

>and post less.

Guffaw.

************************

David C. Ullrich

Quantcast