Re: .99999... still=/= 1
From: Richard Tobin (richard_at_cogsci.ed.ac.uk)
Date: 12/05/04
- Next message: Virgil: "Re: induction vs Cantor"
- Previous message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Dec 2004 21:39:56 GMT
In article <20041205112356.06084.00000875@mb-m19.aol.com>,
S. Enterprize Company <smart1234@aol.com> wrote:
>.999... equal to 1 and it DOESN'T. It converges to 1, which means an
>approximate nearest value to, is reached.
As you've been told over and over again, .999... *means* the value
that .9, .99, .999, ... converges to. And that value is 1.
-- Richard
- Next message: Virgil: "Re: induction vs Cantor"
- Previous message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]