Well you can prove anything you want using that sort complicated stuff.
0.99 gets closer n closer to 1 but it can't ever reach it.
decimals is something different and can't work that way.
the 3s go to infinity. so that part, that difference, becomes smaller and smaller
that difference, becomes smaller and smaller, to infinity. but it *never* ceases to exist, it just becomes small beyond your point of comprehension.
it's a fraction, something you NEED to calculate in order to GET a number
1/3 is not possible to find, cause there is no number that you multiply with 3 to get the result of 1.
If we calculate 1/3, what number we will get?
1) math needs to go both ways.
3) if 1/3 = 0,33333..., it means that 0,33333... x 3 must give 1. though it doesn't cause 0,33333... is not a number, it's nothing.
anyway what's the difference between 1/3 and 1/6?
do you also use dots in a "let's say" way?
take a piece of paper and feel free to prove me how that's right.
yes. that's 0,50 and it stops there.
become as close as we want
the limit of 0.999999999999999.......... is 1
P4r4 thinks that infinity must be "some really large number" (aka it 'must be bound' somewhere / have some upper limit) because he cannot see how to write it.
That means that somewhere infinity must be bound. Aka it must correspond to 'a real number'.
That multiplication distributes over addition is not a property of an ordered field right? (I don't think it is)
because if 1 is "purely 1" (aka 1.0000000) then it can never be equal to 0.999999
However this leads to a paradox... because if 1 is "purely 1" (aka 1.0000000) then it can never be equal to 0.999999.....
I also don't care about terms... As I find that people who do not understand math come up with terms to hide their incompetence (I'm not talking about you but in general).
That 1 = 0.99999..... by definition is just some chap not understanding it so he defined what is not neccessary to define.
I use the number representation to show the most intuitive algabraic concept of infinity.
I've already answered the questions you pose in this post.
You say "0+x = x" which is obviously true in the 'current system'.
I say that 0+x = 0+x
But anyway I don't really care about the usefullness... I think it can work nicely for some of the problems that science as a whole is going to run into soon (or is running into alread).
As like I said... a lot of physics fail when we get (close) to the absolute minimal temperature. This could very well be because of the lack of infinitesimals in current math. (I don't know though... as nobody knows what causes those 'abnormalities')
notion of "pure nothing" which is in the current math.
sidestep1: I still truelly do not see why I should ever write "pure nothing" (from a philosophical stance).
Where it goes wrong is you saying:
That should be:
"2*0 = 2*0".
why only if you were a female scientist/mathematician?