Debate on the Equality of 0.999... and 1: An Analysis of Hurkyl's Response

[ram1024]

Good work locking another thread when you don't want to hear any arguments that might offend your delicate sensibilities.

I'm sure that Hurkyl doesn't need to ask you any questions. What you are supposed to do is think about it, and try to learn something.

i thought about it. it shed no new light on the current topic at hand, what did you want me to do. tell him "thanks but that's worthless"

He did. He stated that the equation 0.999...=1 is a consequence of how equality is defined for real numbers. The conclusion couldn't be any easier to spot.

BS he doesn't say that anywhere. .999 = f(n) = 0 for n >= 0 and
f(n) = 9 for n < 0. 1 = f(n) = 0 for n > 1 and f(1) = 1 and f(n) = 0 for n < 1.

those functions are NOT the same. so if he SOMEHOW came to that conclusion that they ARE from THAT then he is blind

No, he's locking your asinine thread because it is a waste of bandwidth.

no he locked my thread because he needs some time to grow up, as do you.

 

[chroot]

Good bye, ram1024. You're now only welcome to post to the theory development subforum here, which is where your ideas belong. Vehemently believing in something doesn't make it true.

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

Good work locking another thread when you don't want to hear any arguments that might offend your delicate sensibilities.

Calling Hurkyl a "stooge" repeatedly doesn't constitute argumentation.

i thought about it. it shed no new light on the current topic at hand, what did you want me to do. tell him "thanks but that's worthless"

Think about it some more.

BS he doesn't say that anywhere.

Oh, for Pete's sake, he said it in the very post you linked to.

That makes it clear: You can't read.

.999 = f(n) = 0 for n >= 0 and
f(n) = 9 for n < 0. 1 = f(n) = 0 for n > 1 and f(1) = 1 and f(n) = 0 for n < 1.

those functions are NOT the same. so if he SOMEHOW came to that conclusion that they ARE from THAT then he is blind

There's no "somehow". He stated perfectly clearly that it is a matter of how equality is defined for real numbers.

no he locked my thread because he needs some time to grow up, as do you.

Look, I don't have time for your little temper tantrums. When I locked your last thread, it was not a cue for you to start another one just like it. If you have something to say to me personally, use the Private Messaging system.

Any future threads you start for the sole purpose of ranting at the staff will not be locked, but deleted.

Stop it now.