Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- From: Kirby Cook <kwmcook@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 02:53:26 GMT
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <lZ9ge.12093$U01.10469@trnddc07>, Kirby Cook <kwmcook@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The assertion that the sum is infinite means, to me, that there is no point where it will equal 1 and be, therefore, finished, and finite.
No.
The term "infinite sum" is shorthand for "the limit of the infinite sequence of partial sums". The infinite sequence is indeed never finished, but the infinite sum is not the infinite sequence, it is the limit of it, which in this case is 1.
As far as I am aware, 1 has been finished and finite for some time now.
-- Richard
Let me try it another way. My assertion might be stated (I hope) as follows. Given the set whose elements are nine tenths, nine tenths plus nine hundredths, nine tenths plus nine hundredths plus nine thousandths, etc., the least upper bound of the set is one, and one is not a member of the set.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- From: Richard Tobin
- Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- From: stephen
- Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- References:
- Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- From: Kirby Cook
- Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- From: stephen
- Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- From: Kirby Cook
- Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- From: Richard Tobin
- Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- Prev by Date: Re: Empty family?
- Next by Date: Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- Previous by thread: Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- Next by thread: Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- Index(es):