Re: .99999... still=/= 1
From: tinyurl.com/uh3t (rem642b_at_Yahoo.Com)
Date: 11/29/04
- Next message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Previous message: Chip Eastham: "Re: Determinants and commuting matrices (old Hoffman and Kunze Exercise)"
- In reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Next in thread: lasse_rempe_at_yahoo.de: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:38:32 -0800
> From: smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company)
> I didn't use my calculator. I used the online math Partial Sums at
> http://www.univie.ac.at/future.media/moe/onlinewerkzeuge.html
> I didn't write down anything. I pasted the solution from the Online
> Partial Sums Convergence calculator from there to here.
I looked on that site, and found:
[BUTTON] Numerical computation of series
After typing in an expression for a[k], the items of the sequence of
partial sums are represented numerically.
Is that what you used? Do you have any idea what is meant by the phrase
"Numerical computation"? Do you believe it gives only an approximation
to the correct answer, or do you believe it gives exactly the
mathematically correct answer?
- Next message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Previous message: Chip Eastham: "Re: Determinants and commuting matrices (old Hoffman and Kunze Exercise)"
- In reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Next in thread: lasse_rempe_at_yahoo.de: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]