If .999 is 1 then 1 must be 1.001

1.001 + .999 = 2

You're an idiot.- Hide quoted text -

I don't think that he is smart enough to qualify
as an idiot.

On Nov 9, 6:47 pm, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:

First meaning of '.001':

.001 was meant to express a terminating decimal added to .999
terminating decimal to equal 1.

Second meaning:

In the case of non-terminating decimal .999999999999999999..., the
addition of (infinite leading zeros preceding 1) .
000000000000000001..., would be required to halt the repeating pattern
and produce 1.

When dealing with mathematical objects well-defined by a set of axioms equality makes sense only for the same object unless we qualify that we are referring to the result of an operation (which is a mapping) like,

2 + 2 = 4,

in which case we are not equating 4 to the object on the left but the result of that operation. In the case of 1 and .99..., they are distinct mathematical objects. We may, of course, equate 1 to the the limit of the sum of the  series .9 + .09 + ... but the limit of this sum is something else, not the object 0.99... We can also correctly say that .99... is an approximation of 1 or 1 is an approximation of .99... in the standard norm but, an approximation is different from the object being approximated.

I appreciate this kind of comment  because it has mathematical content and not an expletive or an insult or name calling or attempt to trivialize someone's post. From my long experience the latter category is the weapon of the racist to put down a commenter. The participation of everyone here including the racist is a good thing and does not reflect in anyway the fine tradition of this forum. In fact, I have a couple of articles online where I pointed to SciMath as the best among all forums in terms of the diversity of ideas and opportunity for expression. I also identified what I consider the worst and listed many excellent ones in between. In my latest post here I even contratulated Drexel University for hosting this fine institution.

Cheers.

E. E. Escultura      

As far as racism is concerned, on what basis, we do not know the race of Edgar 1.Edgar, calling some one an idiot is not a big thing in America, The city of Madison that you did your Phd as you know was full of those Idiots, them days-- seen them at State street. Edgar, I come originally from India, there are more damn racists there by far than in America, there is not only racism in India, Color bar exists, Very few African students would study in India, so please cut the racists thing out, the rest is fair game

P. S. I am actually from the Philippines (it is not hard to guess what one's race is) and I am using the term racism scientifically based on its historical root and context. Thus, my use of this term is also my self expression just as the racist has his own right to self expression. I am just making an objective observation that there are participants to which the term applies.  

Good Phillipino , very fine people, Always found them fine people, many friends. Edgar, I am an anglo Indian my grandfather was born in Glascow Scotland and was in the British military, and My daughter is part Parsi, iranian descent, my other children part Jewish. She is a US attorney, is married to a half African American and half white. So what race is my Grandduaghter. Who cares.

Thanks for the respinte. I'll view your work.

Cheers,

I have downloaded your article about inverse 19 and I have noted your interesting observations on the Euclidean plane which we can formalize as the cartesian product space of the real numbers or R^2. I assume you are using the field axioms of the real numbers. To simplify and avoid the inconsistency of the field axioms I offer you the new real number system R* with very simple three axioms:

1) 0, 1 are elements of R* and

2) and 3) the addition and multiplication tables

that first well-define 0 and 1, then the integers, then the terminating decimals and, based on the terminating decimals, well define the nonterminating decimasl.

If you are using the field axioms I would like to look at the analytical proof of your first obsevation based on these axioms. Then you can simplify the proof and avoid the stigma of the field axioms, i.e., their inconsistency, using the results about the new real number system that I posted here or its three axioms. Use my email for your reply: escultu...@yahoo.com.

Cheers.

Good Phillipino , very fine people, Always found them fine people, many friends. Edgar, I am an anglo Indian my grandfather was born in Glascow Scotland and was in the British military, and My daughter is part Parsi, iranian descent, my other children part Jewish. She is a US attorney, is married to a half African American and half white. So what race is my Grandduaghter. Who cares.
----------

Operatively, any tinge of color makes a person colored. non-white.

Cheers.

thus:
original sources (and "sourcebooks") are really good,
such as the below-linked Ouvre de Fermat for number-
theory, and Bernoulli/L'Hopital's calculus textbook.
(Euclid, not so much, as an encyclopedia, although
he did supply new stuff, they say -- and
Langlands says that Book 7 needs a lot of work; I do have
a nice latter-day textbook on synthetic trigon geometry, but
it's in French, so it's hard work.)

thus:
of course, and the electrons can't go faster
than light *even if*
they might already be orbitting the nucleus
at such a velocity.

thus:
I could see that he got rid of the gamma function, but
it'll be a while before that is clear to me; so,
I asked about a problem he wrote about, before.

m'brain:
L'Ouvre: http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html