Re: How many mathematicians ...
- From: Uncle Ben <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 23, 11:25 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3e6bd23a-c795-429b-9098-e53fcf219548@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 22, 11:39 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
1/7 = 0.\142857\ + h
If we multiply both sides by 7, we get
1 = 0.\999999\ + 7h
QED.
...
So,
1 = 0.\99999\ + 7h
and earlier
1 = 0.\99999\ + h
Subtracting,
0 = 6h
============================
h/7 < h and see lemma 1 (which you agreed was fine), h cannot
be divided by 7 before multiplying by 6.
What are you talking about?
Who is trying to divide h by 7?
Not me. I multiplied it by 7.
Face it, Johnny, your theory of a smallest real number
greater than zero leads to contradictions.
Either h = 0 or 7 = 6.
Your little h is zero.
Uncle Ben
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How many mathematicians ...
- From: Androcles
- Re: How many mathematicians ...
- References:
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: Androcles
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: Androcles
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: Androcles
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: Androcles
- How many mathematicians ...
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: How many mathematicians ...
- From: Androcles
- Re: How many mathematicians ...
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: How many mathematicians ...
- From: Androcles
- Re: How many mathematicians ...
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: How many mathematicians ...
- From: Androcles
- Re: .9 repeating
- Prev by Date: Re: galilean transformation equations
- Next by Date: Re: How many mathematicians ...
- Previous by thread: Re: How many mathematicians ...
- Next by thread: Re: How many mathematicians ...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|