Recent content by WW_III_ANGRY

Thanks I'm aware of Dedekind cuts but not Cauchy sequences. I am really low level math.

That is great, very comprehensible thank you. But what does this mean about the decimal system, is it flawed or is the square root of 2 flawed? Is it possible to postulate a more precise number system? I consider math to be "perfect" conceptually, even though that requirement for squaring...

Oh I see. I didn't wish to round, I terminated the sequence without rounding.

Actually the square root is 1.414213 yes? Which I still show as 1.9999... (with some string of other integers dependent upon how far out we go at the tail end)

Mark, thank you for bearing with me :) Let me continue with my understanding in hope that you can see what I am thinking and where I am wrong: 1/3 is able to be represented precisely in a fraction form. Essentially its a piece divided into three parts. Makes perfect logical sense to me and...

Well if we're talking about 1 light year then its a major difference, yes? So vast that it is hard to comprehend how big of a difference that length is.

Thats my issue. It is never exact. For every decimal we expand, when we multiply it by itself the result is not 2, but 1.999... As I see it there is no value or number more precise than this decimal expansion other than saying the square root of 2 itself or any other form, which...

Ok then, does the number that when multiplied by itself equals two have a better way to be represented that has a comprehensible value other than the number that when multiplied by itself that equals two?

Another question I have is, do all numbers have a value?

The non existence in the physical world is not necessarily my issue. As I see it, the number 2 does not have a possible value that when multiplied by itself equals two. Value being defined as: 4 : a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement <let...

It does not make sense to me because no matter how many decimals the square root of 2 is expanded to, it will always be 1.999 with some varying string of numbers at the tail dependent upon how many decimals expanded to, through infinity. Which is why at best it is 1.99...to infinity, not 2. I...

Yes so wouldn't it be irrational to consider the square root of two to actually exist? I don't see how a number that when multiplied itself actually equals 2! It doesn't make sense to me.

square root of 2 is a number that when multiplied by itself = 2, although I cannot find that number precisely base 10 somehow it exists in conceptual geometry and is always an approximation based on what we are measuring. If a triangle or pyramid were to exist in physical gauageble reality, we...

I still can't comprehend that because it still seems like an approximation (although as close as we can get without knowing any better). Am I stupid?

How is it possible to think any other way though? (√2)(√2) = 2 will only blind us to the true dilemma that a number that can be multiplied by itself will not be able to equal 2? Its uncountable to me. Why do math rules apply it as something countable? This is my dilemma. I think it is...