Re: Proof 0.999... is not equal to one.

On 31 May 2007 02:12:13 -0700, chajadan@xxxxxxxx wrote:

quasi wrote:

For that matter, what about the fraction 1/3?
I'm sure you accept 1/3 as a real number.
Do you accept 1/3 = .333... ?

I believe 1/3 is exactly a real number. I believe any division of a
span of the number line will yield a real number.

I do not accept 1/3 = 0.333.... I regard 0.333... as strictly less. In
my personal understanding, I could never hope to say 0.999... does not
equal one while simultaneously saying 1/3 = 0.333... so I am surprised
you would expect I might accept that as literally valid.

So in your system, you don't have any decimal representations except
those fractions whose decimals terminate.

In other words, in your system, sqrt(2), Pi, 1/3, 2/3, 1/7, etc all
lack decimal representations.

With so many numbers lacking decimal representations, there's no point
to using decimals. For one thing, even if you start with a decimal.
you run into trouble as soon as you start to divide.

So all you really have is rational numbers.

You don't even have sqrt(2) or Pi. For how would you define them
without using a limit process? You can't.

So you've regressed back to just the rationals.

So much for the area of a circle.

So much for the Pythagorean Theorem.

Your system has just set mathematics back a few thousand years.

Good work.

quasi
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Demonstrating that 0.999... = 1
    ... what is a/b when a and b are real numbers, ... Cauchy sequences of rationals) ... Any "proof" that is based on manipulating infinite decimal representations ... instead of Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts, and of "why does the square ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: .9999... = 1, No it doesnt.
    ... sets can be represented with decimal representations. ... equivalence class of Cauchy sequences of rationals to ... Alternatively I'm asking if there is some rule whereby we identify ... particular equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences with decimal ...
    (sci.math)