A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum > NKS Way of Thinking > 1=/ .9999999..... proof
Author
damsell

Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 20

1=/ .9999999..... proof

The Australian philosopher colin leslie proves .99999[BAR]=/1

mathematicians say .999999 [BAR] = 1

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.9999.html

Dean shows you it does not

let
x=.33333[BAR]
3x = .99999999 [BAR]
but you say
.99999999 [BAR] = 1
then
3x = 1
now 3x-x = 1- .333333[BAR]
2x = .6666666........7

(ie 0-3=7
so when we subtract the last .3 at infinity from the last 0 at infinity we get .6666666........7)
therefore
x= (.6666666........7)/2

therefore

x= .333333.....35
3x=1.000000...05
therefore we have now
.999999[bar] = 3x= 1.0.......5

we have one proof proving .99999[BAR] = 1
and another proving .99999[BAR] =/1
that demonstrating colin leslie deans claim that mathematics ends in meaninglessness ie self contradiction

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-25-2008 11:55 AM
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

"the last .3 at infinity"

Meaningless...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-25-2008 01:51 PM
damsell

Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 20

"the last .3 at infinity"

Meaningless...

no more meaningless as at infinity there are some infinities with different sizes

if there is no last .3 at infinity
then 1.0000[R] - .33333[R] must be indeterminate as with no final number you cant have any subtraction

normaly you would say
1.0000[R] -.33333[R] = .6666666[R]
BUT WITH NO FINAL 0 OR .3 AS YOU SAY
you cant perform the subtraction

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-25-2008 02:04 PM
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

I think you need a basic review of the definition of an equivalence class...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-25-2008 02:28 PM
damsell

Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 20

you say

I think you need a basic review of the definition of an equivalence class.

for support of deans claim

from sci logic

Actually its legal to talk about a 7 at the end
of the infinity line. Namely because we are
dealing with ordinals and not with cardinals.

A sequence has more to do with an ordinal
than wie a cardinal, as it orders its elements.

Omega denotes the standard ordinal, which
we normally connect with infinite decimal
numbers. What elsiemelsi does, is simple he
puts forward omega+1.

But there are much much more orders and ordinals,
we could even have omega+omega, or omega+mirror(omega),
omega+omega+1, omega^2:

12... 12... = omega + omega
12... ...12 = omega + mirror(omega)
12... 12... 1 = omega + omega + 1

12...
2....
..... = omega^2
.....
.....

Nothing special. For example Z, the positive and
negative numbers, are easily seen as mirror(omega)+
omega, namely:

... -2 -1 0 1 2 ...

But mirror(omega)+omega is not healthy for numbers,
because the get big!

... 3333.3333 ....

Quite a big number, isn't it?

> Actually its legal to talk about a 7 at the end
> of the infinity line. Namely because we are
> dealing with ordinals and not with cardinals.

OK. Now how does one handle

..333.... x .333... ?

In this New Arithmetic(tm) we should get something like

..111....11088....889
<i> <w+i> <2w>

where 'w' is omega.

Since 1/3 = .333.... the product 1/3 x 1/3 is clearly
not represntable by a fraction (1/9 = .111..... does not
extend past <w>), and therefore the rational numbers is
not closed under this new system.

This is a minor problem, to be sure...but it *is* a problem.
I'm assuming you have a fix.

Last edited by damsell on 02-25-2008 at 02:50 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

02-25-2008 02:40 PM
Enexseenge

Kingston WA

Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 46

I had a similar idea. Or perhaps what i am currently discerning by skimming over your comments simply seems familiar, irrationally..

As for Jason, i wish i was rich enough to hire someone to make comments like that (as well as explanations) full time.

The idea that i had pertained to irrational numbers and the idea of not actually being able to do operations like subtraction and addition with them. Something about how the digit sequence is not complete.
It feels like we must assume a level of completeness within an irrational number before we can operate on it, as if we have to make a choice to "stop" enumerating it's digit sequence and use it as a discrete element in an operation.

Hummm? what ever.

__________________
A great revolution is at hand, but this is just a metaphor.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-18-2008 01:34 AM

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  web resources  |  contact us