Re: .99999... still=/= 1
QncyMI_at_netscape.net
Date: 12/02/04
- Next message: k_over_hbarc_at_yahoo.com: "Jesus christ What's going on?"
- Previous message: Titus Piezas III: "A New Way To Solve Cubics Using A Linear Fractional Transformation"
- Maybe in reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Next in thread: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Reply: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Dec 2004 22:01:51 -0800
wow, I'm tripping on this new format --
it seems to enforce *selective* quoting, instead
of dumping the whole thread into the editor.
anyway,
I had said taht I found an *application*
of your alleged dilemma. if you look
at Escultura's write-up for his counter-examples,
he seems to use 0.9999... as a coefficient,
namely to get somehting like 10-adics
(as someone was saying to him .-)
--le ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net/bush7.htm
- Next message: k_over_hbarc_at_yahoo.com: "Jesus christ What's going on?"
- Previous message: Titus Piezas III: "A New Way To Solve Cubics Using A Linear Fractional Transformation"
- Maybe in reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Next in thread: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Reply: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|