OSDev.org

Brynet-Inc wrote: I sense an insult in there somewhere.. but I can't break your encryption scheme.. You'll slip up one day! Wink

No. I was not insolent and my remark was not impertinent nor presumptuous . I was not disrespectful of your opinion but rather openly argumentative about it by comparing this thread and that other thread.

You are slacking up on your job. We are going to have to fire you and hire someone else.

This right here was bait to you most likely, I imagine. It still lacks a direct connection to a insult since the job you hold is imaginary or if you really think there exists such a job you have not openly acknowledged it which if is so and just not openly acknowledged then yes I could agree that it was the insult. Since I was presumptuous that you are deliberately slacking on your job which has no proof. And if you would really like to know the truth then that is that, "I was trying to push buttons."

Of course you successfully dodged the button pushing attempt as I hoped and expected you to do.

regarding 1 - 0.(infinite 0s)1: that also equals 1

with the help of some first year college mathematics
1- 0.(0...)1
= lim(n->inf) (1 - 1/10^n)
= lim (n->inf) 1 - lim(n->inf) (1/10^n)
= 1 - 0
= 1

and as said before
0.999...
= 1 - 0.(0...)1
with the above
= 1
And i think mathematician can verify the correctness of this.

Who dares contradict this proof without resorting to "Maths are inconsistent"?

Well, people who think 0.999~ is separated from 1 by 0.00~1 won't agree with that either, because they'll take issue with 0.00~1 = 0 :p.

Zekrazey1 wrote:Well, people who think 0.999~ is separated from 1 by 0.00~1 won't agree with that either, because they'll take issue with 0.00~1 = 0 :p.

I don't know where you would find people who think that, but it certainly wouldn't be in a university mathematics department; most of them want to keep their jobs.

I don't know where you would find people who think that ...

You have been reading this thread, havn't you?

Everything in mathematics comes down to definitions, and the sum of an infinite series is defined to be the least upper bound. If you wanrted to start a whole new branch of mathematics by coming up with an alternative definition it is not likely that you would be listened to until:

1.) You had rigorously defined what you understood the limit of an infinite series to be, and

2.) You had given a proof, sufficiently rigorous to convince professional mathematicians, that your new understanding would fit in with the rest of mathematics without contradiction.

By the time you had done that you will have well earned your PhD

I don't disagree with you. However, there are plenty of other PhD hopefuls around .

I cant help thinking what 9/10 would look like in base 11...

mathematician wrote:sufficiently rigorous to convince professional mathematicians, that your new understanding would fit in with the rest of mathematics without contradiction.

Mathematicians say: 0.999... = 1
You say: 0.999... != 1
By substitution of equals, we get: 1 != 1

So much for mathematical consistency...

Mathematicians say: 0.999... = 1
You say: 0.999... != 1
...

Errr ...

mathematician wrote: ... you can take it from me that 0.999999 recurring does equal one ...