Moderator: Flannel Jesus
Ecmandu wrote:You (in stating) that 0.999... is not a number
Magnus Anderson wrote:Ecmandu wrote:You (in stating) that 0.999... is not a number
That's not my statement.
Ecmandu wrote:I already did.
No possible being can hold “all” of an infinite sequence in their “minds eye” at once, all they can do is to infer it.
An object has an end. Say, a couch. Thus we call it a couch. Very simple. An infinite number of couches?
No way! We can infer it, but we cannot count it.
Ecmandu wrote:Ok. You copied someone else’s statement. Prove that it’s wrong.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Ecmandu wrote:I already did.
No possible being can hold “all” of an infinite sequence in their “minds eye” at once, all they can do is to infer it.
An object has an end. Say, a couch. Thus we call it a couch. Very simple. An infinite number of couches?
No way! We can infer it, but we cannot count it.
I don't see a syllogism here. I can't see it in a previous post either.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Ecmandu wrote:Ok. You copied someone else’s statement. Prove that it’s wrong.
Alright.
Let's say the full argument of that imaginary person of mine goes something like this:
1) \(0.999\dotso\) has no end
2) Numbers must have an end
3) Therefore, \(0.999\dotso\) is a number
I disagree with the second premise. The word "end" is not defined with respect to numbers. What does it mean for a number to have an end or to have no end?
The first premise is stating that the infinite expression represented by \(0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + \cdots\) has no end. I agree with that. However, that infinite expression is a symbol, it is not the symbolized. It is that which represents, not that which is represented. It says NOTHING about that which is represented. So even if we accepted the second premise (that numbers must have an end), the conclusion does not follow.
Ecmandu wrote:You know what I’m saying, and you know what it means, and still you want a syllogism from ME!
Ecmandu wrote:Of course 0.999... is the symbol and not the symbolized. I’ve been saying that the whole fucking time!
The symbolized NEVER ends!!! NEVER is a temporal word!
Magnus Anderson wrote:One more thing.
This is an acceptable response:
1) Every single opinion of every single stupid person is false.
2) Magnus Anderson is a stupid person.
3) Magnus Anderson has an opinion that \(0.9 \neq 1\).
4) Therefore, \(0.\dot9 \neq 1\) is false.
This is acceptable because it addresses the question posed in the OP which is "Is \(0.\dot9 = 1\)?"
This is an unacceptable response:
"The reason Magnus Anderson is wrong on this subject is because he can't accept the possibility that he is wrong because that would shatter his excessively positive perception of himself. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and his entire existence depends so much on this belief, that he simply cannot allow anything to disturb it. If he wasn't so arrogant, he'd have learned by now that \(0.\dot9 = 1\)."
This is unacceptable because it's an answer to an unrelated question that is "Why is Magnus Anderson wrong on this subject?"
It's quite simply off-topic.
To make it worse, the question assumes the correct answer to the question posed in the OP.
Ecmandu wrote:Think about what you’re asking first before you call me “lazy”
Syllogism wise, you’re asking me to prove something no human has ever proven before... it’s very HARD!! It could take years!
My sentences on the other hand are not HARD!
“My position is that it’s the symbol and not the symbolized that never ends”
Wtf dude! That makes no mathematical sense to ANY mathematician!!!
Are you just saying shit to say shit?
Magnus Anderson wrote:What's up, Ec?
I have a question for you. Are you willing to answer it?
What's the number of numbers that we can get by dividing \(1\) by a natural?
The number of such numbers is infinite, correct?
\(\frac{1}{1}, \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{3}, \dotso\)
Is there are a number greater than every number in that list?
There is, right? For example, \(2\) is greater than every single number in that list.
In fact, there are many such numbers: \(2\), \(3\), \(4\) and so on.
So if we can speak of numbers greater than every number of the form \(\frac{1}{n}\) where \(n\) is a natural number, why can't we speak of numbers greater than every integer?
I say "numbers" instead of "a number" intentionally.
Iamthegodoftruth wrote:A does not equal not-A. Except when it does, but then you’ll have to call it something else. Since “A” is already taken.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users