RE: [split] 0.999... equals 1
October 16, 2009 at 5:48 am
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2009 at 5:54 am by fr0d0.)
(October 15, 2009 at 10:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: No it's not that we don't have a descriptor. It's that there can't possibly be a gap between them because you can't add anything onto an infinite, never-ending... - an endless string of 9s in order to make it 1. So it can't be any "less", because there is no gap between them.
EvF
If there could be a logical definition of infinity minus infinitesimally small that would be the number. As infinity can be no real number it's crazy to apply real number logistics to it.
Fact remains.. the 2 can never converge, no matter that you can't name the infinitesimal, we know it's there at every stage. There is no end to infinite.. so the infinitesimal amount has no end either. Just because I can't name the number doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We KNOW it HAS to exist using logic. the logical proofs deny this, which is their error.
(October 15, 2009 at 10:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Damn, what happened fr0d0? I thought you got this a dozen pages back?
It has nothing to do with convergence. 0.9r (or 0.9... or whatever) is just another way of writing 1 in the decimal system. You say 0.9r can be less than one. Ok, that's a testable claim. Please tell me the number that you can add to 0.9r to make it 1.
I know I just felt sorry for C all here alone
Nothing wrong with questioning is there?!?
Say you had an infinite railway line. You know the line moves closer to the border 9/10ths every mile. On your (incredibly short but long haha!
...this would have to be an incredibly shrinking train and track! LOL) train journey, at every mile you notice the gap decreasing by 9/10ths... but it NEVER reaches 10/10ths at any point. It cannot, because we've already established that it keeps to 9/10ths to infinity, the law says so.. "no train track shall ever touch the damn border!!!" (damn politicians!!)
