Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Previous message: conesetter: "Re: Mathematical Linguistics"
- In reply to: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Next in thread: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Reply: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Reply: Don Whitehurst: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 07:14:07 -0500
The World Wide Wade wrote:
>
> But .099999999..... has infinitely many non-zero digits after the
> decimal point, and it's in the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}.
Irrelevent. 0.0999.... converges to a rational number. The number 0.123
etc is not a repeating decimal so it converges to an irrational number.
All the elements of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, etc} are rational numbers.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Previous message: conesetter: "Re: Mathematical Linguistics"
- In reply to: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Next in thread: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Reply: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Reply: Don Whitehurst: "Re: Is 0.123... a member of the set {0, 0.1, 0.12, 0.123, ...}?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]