Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2

Kirby Cook wrote:


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.

That is correct. The N-th element of the set is 1 - 1/10^N which is not zero for integer N > 0.

Bob Kolker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
    ... 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 ... is a member of the described set, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
    ... My assertion might be stated as ... Given the set whose elements are nine tenths, nine tenths plus ... >nine hundredths, nine tenths plus nine hundredths plus nine thousandths, ... means that least upper bound, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Decimals
    ... Mark Brader: ... twenty-eight plus two tenths plus three hundreds plus seven thousandths ...
    (alt.usage.english)
Loading