0.99999~ = 1 ?

Is a bit off, but It is for the rest of it. You 1.9999

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

To prove that 0.999 is a real number one reads the dictionary. But fine, if that's the way you want it:

1. P₁[for all real numbers| fits definition of real number.]
2. P₂[0.9999| fits definition of real number]
3. C[0.999 is a real number.]

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Well, I could hardly do better then either Rrhain or Dr. Adequate, both honest-to-goodness mathematicians. Frankly, I'm not even qualified to have the debate; I only know what a real number is because I had read and understood the proof composed by honest-to-goodness mathematicians. And that you don't understand what "converge upon e" means means that you aren't either.So, if I'm not qualified to have the debate, why did I respond? That's because I recognized that you're not trying to debate, you're trying to be clever. (1.999 cleaver by 1/1.999) One doesn't debate established realities. One looks them up. One might debate whether something is an established reality; but, as per my admission and your demonstration, neither of us is qualified to enter that debate regarding real numbers. We are only in the position the sit back and admire our superiors, Rrhain and Dr. Adequate. (Or mine them for information if we can think of a question not so stupid as to embarrass ourselves.)And to touch upon the topic: 1- 0.000= 0.999Edited by lyx2no, : Tried some cleaver formatting that didn't work out as I thought it would.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Hi RAZDAre you questioning whether 0.999~ is the same as 0.9999~?

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Mass debating belongs in a religion thread.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Is Zeno by any chance whispering "For get about that turtle race thing: I was wrong."? Zeno couldn't solve it, but a lot of maths have been discovered since his day. A proof for that? You are so out of your league.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

These are exactly the evidences proving you've got it exactly backwards and are confusing the symbol for the object. firstly, in math it is only the meaning that is of importance. secondly, U and OO are not identical because they have other, non-matching values (sun: soon), while .999~ and 1 do not have other non-matching values. And yet you do treat them such over and over again.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

No, the two figures themselves are not identical. That does not, however, preclude them from having an identical meaning. If both are symbolic representations of a wad of ear wax secreted by Eva Braun on October 13, 1934 then they are identical. They would then also be identical to the phrase "a wad of ear wax secreted by Eva Braun on October 13, 1934."I answered your U-OO question. Spring your trap already. If you have a point to make it may be more efficient to state it rather then to pretend you're Socrates.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

It's, like, really silly to quote mine me when your writing to me, and it's even sillier to quote mine me when you include the entire quote on the same page. See the bit that says "No, the two figures themselves are not identical."? Seems I am capable. But to answer your question further: When one is talking about the meaning of a symbol one must know what the symbol means. I would hope that such a tautology would be self explanatory, butLook, no one is arguing that two different shapes are the same shape. No one is arguing that U's an OO's are indistinguishable on the page. It is being argued that different shapes can have identical meanings. It is meaning and only meaning that is relevant to the discussion. The visual aid shape, symbol, what have you is only a stand in for a single, self-identical idea. 0.999~ is identical to 1 because no one is talking about the shape, symbol, what have you; but about the idea they express.Fine, you win the argument your having. Mind telling me who you're having it with. 'cause it ain't no one posting here. No you haven't. You started out saying "This multi-encoding scheme used by Math can give the false impression that there are three separate realities each represented by three distinct symbologies, which, of course, is not the case." There are no three-separate-realities. Those are a figment of your imagination. The false impression is of your own making. Edited by lyx2no, : Unintentional early submission.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

quote:

---

In mathematics, this adjective can be used in phrases like "A and B are identical".

---

But A isn't identical to B. B is all lumpy and stuff, while A is all stabby and junk. The topic is 0.999~=1. That's math. Why would you think an argument outside of mathematics was applicable in this thread and introduce blobs? For the purpose of this thread, why would we care what any average speaker would infer?Edited by lyx2no, : Dang, did it again.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.