Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #603111 > unrolled thread

.999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence

Started by"mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com>
First post2023-06-23 19:37 -0700
Last post2023-06-26 10:14 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 151 — 36 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 19:37 -0700
    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Brennan Otten <nnna@nebnrnea.ea> - 2023-06-24 19:20 +0000
      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 14:59 -0700
        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Hoang Kouman <gago@hhngnaoa.om> - 2023-06-24 22:22 +0000
          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:28 -0700
            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Bennett Sniders <rtne@etnnneis.bn> - 2023-06-24 23:28 +0000
              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:53 -0700
                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:58 -0700
                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 09:30 -0700
                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:35 -0700
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:59 -0700
                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:07 -0700
                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 16:41 -0400
                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Deandre Romijnsen <dsrm@nnrderee.ds> - 2023-06-26 21:36 +0000
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 16:31 -0400
                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:34 -0700
                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:35 -0700
              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:57 -0700
                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Bernard Bueren <buur@enbeebdn.ru> - 2023-06-25 08:00 +0000
                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Vlademire Ramaker <arde@rekeadem.ae> - 2023-06-25 19:18 +0000
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 12:29 -0700
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-25 17:54 -0400
                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Nikki Cann <nika@kinianka.ka> - 2023-06-25 22:06 +0000
                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:15 -0700
                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-25 18:30 -0400
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Shan Kloeten <ntne@ntnnstke.sn> - 2023-06-26 06:45 +0000
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely Barton Houtem <otub@ahutnaee.eb> - 2023-06-26 06:58 +0000
                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 12:47 -0700
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Buddy Oorschot <ocuo@codhudoh.to> - 2023-06-25 20:22 +0000
                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 14:20 -0700
                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Geosvani Peter <ogtv@asvsegtg.vp> - 2023-06-25 21:30 +0000
                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 14:51 -0700
                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Dustan Rademaker <mdrn@eurttrrn.de> - 2023-06-25 22:16 +0000
                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:18 -0700
                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Lemuel Marqueringh <argr@hqqgugqi.lr> - 2023-06-25 22:57 +0000
                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-26 00:19 -0400
                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Markeen Schenck <ecme@kckhhkkc.kn> - 2023-06-26 07:09 +0000
                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Germaine Breda <eraa@gmeenmad.dr> - 2023-06-26 22:37 +0000
                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Morris Offermans <oeoe@ssoaanmf.sr> - 2023-06-26 07:22 +0000
                                  A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 14:23 -0500
                                    Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-06-26 12:57 -0700
                                    Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating Foster Smeets <fste@sstffsem.ee> - 2023-06-26 21:14 +0000
                                    Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely Connor Maas <naoa@nnsamoss.co> - 2023-06-26 21:27 +0000
                                    Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating) Valery Schuyler <evrl@leerrael.hc> - 2023-06-27 11:48 +0000
                                      Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating) Houston Beek <nnoo@bbookeon.ub> - 2023-06-27 22:23 +0000
                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:20 -0700
                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-25 18:26 -0400
                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:29 -0700
                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ezra Venn <rene@nvanarvz.vn> - 2023-06-25 22:49 +0000
                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 00:14 +0100
                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 16:19 -0700
                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 16:23 -0700
                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 00:42 +0100
                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 16:59 -0700
                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 17:03 -0700
                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 17:03 -0700
                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 02:20 +0100
                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 19:31 -0700
                                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 14:57 +0100
                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:39 -0700
                                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:20 -0700
                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 15:07 -0700
                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 02:38 +0100
                                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:21 -0700
                                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 14:51 +0100
                                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 12:55 -0700
                                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 12:56 -0700
                                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:00 -0700
                                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 10:39 -0700
                                                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 14:41 -0700
                                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 21:18 -0700
                                                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 09:57 -0700
                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 15:08 -0700
                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 02:13 +0100
                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 19:33 -0700
                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 05:53 -0400
                                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:30 -0700
                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 14:55 +0100
                                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:27 -0700
                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:09 -0700
                                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:13 -0700
                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:15 -0700
                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:21 -0700
                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 23:04 +0100
                                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:09 -0700
                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:12 -0700
                                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 23:20 +0100
                                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:33 -0700
                                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:36 -0700
                                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 19:32 -0400
                                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:49 -0700
                                                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:31 -0700
                                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-27 16:15 +0100
                                                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 14:32 -0700
                                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-28 02:32 +0100
                                                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:03 -0700
                                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:11 -0700
                                                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:27 -0700
                                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:37 -0700
                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 10:11 -0700
                                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:28 -0700
                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:57 -0700
                                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:05 -0700
                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:17 -0700
                                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 13:29 -0700
                                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:32 -0700
                                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:47 -0700
                                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:56 -0700
                                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:01 -0700
                                                        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:06 -0700
                                                          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:15 -0700
                                                            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:19 -0700
                                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:20 -0700
                                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:24 -0700
                                                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:32 -0700
                                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Maron Andel <nado@eredlemn.rl> - 2023-06-26 22:25 +0000
                                                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:33 -0700
                                                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:59 -0700
                                                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-26 22:36 -0400
                                                                      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 12:07 -0700
                                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 17:15 -0400
                                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:27 -0700
                                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 17:30 -0400
                                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:39 -0700
                                                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:13 -0700
                              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 10:02 -0700
                                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Duncan Antwerp <anec@cnancrwp.ca> - 2023-06-26 22:20 +0000
                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 15:28 -0700
                                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-26 19:43 -0400
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 09:18 -0700
                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Devoise Kool <ovve@sdodevlv.el> - 2023-06-28 21:56 +0000
                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 09:38 -0700
                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:33 -0700
                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 09:42 -0700
            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-24 20:05 -0400
              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 17:08 -0700
                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 17:10 -0700
                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 17:20 -0700
                    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 17:25 -0700
                  Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-24 20:32 -0400
                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-06-24 20:20 -0400
              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Maxie Snider <eida@esxnnrxd.is> - 2023-06-25 08:06 +0000
            Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-25 23:53 +0100
              Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 15:59 -0700
                Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-26 00:32 +0100
    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 01:39 -0700
      Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 10:05 -0700
        Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 14:05 -0700
          Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:30 -0700
    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence "zelos...@gmail.com" <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 00:25 -0700
    Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence W <wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaa@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 10:14 -0700

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#603379 — Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence)

FromJim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
Date2023-06-26 12:57 -0700
SubjectRe: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely large sequence)
Message-ID<h67pmj-844t.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
In reply to#603360
In sci.physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/2023 11:19 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/25/2023 6:18 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2023 3:16 PM, Dustan Rademaker wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> you can't see you have another function fucked up before 
>>>>>> assignment. It
>>>>>> has nothing to do with your truncation. See what "floor" stands for in
>>>>>> physics, idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this imbecile is saying that 0.(9) is the same as 1.0, 0.999 and
>>>>>> 0.999999.
>>>>>> You lack basic education, idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol. I know exactly what the floor function does. Btw:
>>>>> .99 is greater than .9
>>>>
>>>> it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your
>>>> fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in sleep.
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>>
>>> Take n to infinity.
>> 
>> When the nymshifter wrote 0.(9) it's the same as writing 0.999... or 
>> with a bar over the 9s. That's how they show repeating decimal sequences 
>> in nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐. There's no need for me to remind you that the 
>> nymshifter is one of Putin's stooges, posting from the main FSB building 
>> in St. Petersburg in nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐.
> 
> A little insight into the world that made the nymshifter:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJCHXnCRgts
> 
> It seems the nymshifter falls in a category of "normal" for being
> a Russian in 2023. I don't wonder if he stands in line to buy
> toilet paper, I wonder whether he can afford toilet paper.
> 

I wonder if toilet paper is even available since Russia managed to cut
itself off from most of the rest of the world.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603403 — Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating

FromFoster Smeets <fste@sstffsem.ee>
Date2023-06-26 21:14 +0000
SubjectRe: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating
Message-ID<u7cv4a$2pip5$1@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to#603360
whodat wrote:

> A̶ l̶i̶t̶t̶l̶e̶ i̶n̶s̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ i̶n̶t̶o̶ t̶h̶e̶ w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ m̶a̶d̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶ n̶y̶m̶s̶h̶i̶f̶t̶e̶r̶:
> h̶t̶t̶p̶s̶://w̶w̶w̶.y̶o̶u̶t̶u̶b̶e̶.c̶o̶m̶/w̶a̶t̶c̶h̶?v̶=v̶J̶C̶H̶X̶n̶C̶R̶g̶t̶s̶
> I̶t̶ s̶e̶e̶m̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ n̶y̶m̶s̶h̶i̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ f̶a̶l̶l̶s̶ i̶n̶ a̶ c̶a̶t̶e̶g̶o̶r̶y̶ o̶f̶ "n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶" f̶o̶r̶ b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ a̶
> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ i̶n̶ 2023. I̶ d̶o̶n̶'t̶ w̶o̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ i̶f̶ h̶e̶ s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ i̶n̶ l̶i̶n̶e̶ t̶o̶ b̶u̶y̶ t̶o̶i̶l̶e̶t̶
> p̶a̶p̶e̶r̶, I̶ w̶o̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ w̶h̶e̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ h̶e̶ c̶a̶n̶ a̶f̶f̶o̶r̶d̶ t̶o̶i̶l̶e̶t̶ p̶a̶p̶e̶r̶.

but you can suck his large dick anytime to find out. The Mother Russia has 
*_the_largest_forests_in_the_world_*, you *_stupid_suburban_*. Plainly you 
are stupid in many areas. Here's another thing.

 *_Russia_builds_world’s_most_powerful_rocket_engine_*
Roscosmos has announced production of the first sample of the RD-171MV 
engine for the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle 
https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/578515-roscosmos-new-rocket-engine/

Russia brought *_gringo_traitors_* to the international space station, and 
back again. You disgusting excrement. I have to underline, you s̳t̳i̳n̳k̳i̳n̳g̳ 
s̳u̳b̳h̳u̳m̳a̳n̳ e̳x̳c̳r̳e̳m̳e̳n̳t̳. You are supporting terrorists in europe, you fucking 
stupid. You'll probably be brought public places with a paid bullet in 
your pocket. Take care. About the shit you devour.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603405 — Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely

FromConnor Maas <naoa@nnsamoss.co>
Date2023-06-26 21:27 +0000
SubjectRe: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating is almost an infinitely
Message-ID<u7cvrg$2po57$1@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to#603360
whodat wrote:

>> When the nymshifter wrote 0.(9) it's the same as writing 0.999... or
>> with a bar over the 9s. That's how they show repeating decimal
>> sequences in nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐. There's no need for me to remind you
>> that the nymshifter is one of Putin's stooges, posting from the main
>> FSB building in St. Petersburg in nazified 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐.
> 
> A little insight into the world that made the nymshifter:

y̳̳o̳̳u̳̳ c̳̳e̳̳r̳̳t̳̳a̳̳i̳̳n̳̳l̳̳y̳̳ m̳̳a̳̳y̳̳ s̳̳u̳̳c̳̳k̳̳ h̳̳i̳̳s̳̳ l̳̳a̳̳r̳̳g̳̳e̳̳ d̳̳i̳̳c̳̳k̳̳, you uneducated braindead suburban 
excrement. I have to underline.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603466 — Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating)

FromValery Schuyler <evrl@leerrael.hc>
Date2023-06-27 11:48 +0000
SubjectRe: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating)
Message-ID<u7eiaf$33njc$1@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to#603360
Volney wrote:

> I̶ w̶o̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ i̶f̶ h̶e̶ e̶v̶e̶n̶ k̶n̶o̶w̶s̶ w̶h̶a̶t̶ t̶o̶i̶l̶e̶t̶ p̶a̶p̶e̶r̶ i̶s̶.

indeed, you immigrants of america cant even shit in a forest, without
toilet paper.

anyhow, here's *_the_capitalist_west_*, nazi nato and america, trapped
*_in_their_own_propaganda_*. Genial beyond my level. Just imagine
*_the_size_of_the_brain_*, to catch the entire fucking
*_collective_west_*, in their own propaganda. The short khazar goy
motherfucker brought hell on the face of the earth. Amazing.

mercy? These "slava ukraine" nazis killed women on streets since 2014,
it's hard to give them mercy. Having the stomach (18++), you probably have
to watch it a few time to undrestand.

Full Video Even Worse - 47th Brigade AFU Is Torn To Pieces in Zaporozhye -
Mass Slaughter (18++)
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/7UZ51G4GTgM0

the prigojina left to Belarus, the capitalist west still don't
undrestand what is going on. Imagine those "experts", "analyst" etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603510 — Re: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating)

FromHouston Beek <nnoo@bbookeon.ub>
Date2023-06-27 22:23 +0000
SubjectRe: A Little Insight (was Re: .999 repeating)
Message-ID<u7fngd$37kba$1@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to#603466
whodat wrote:
>>> Full Video Even Worse - 47th Brigade AFU Is Torn To Pieces in
>>> Zaporozhye - Mass Slaughter (18++)
>>> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/7UZ51G4GTgM0
>>> the prigojina left to Belarus, the capitalist west still don't
>>> undrestand what is going on. Imagine those "experts", "analyst" etc.
>> Y̶o̶u̶'r̶e̶ t̶r̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶o̶ s̶o̶ h̶a̶r̶d̶ a̶n̶d̶ g̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶o̶ s̶o̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ t̶o̶ s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶
>> y̶o̶u̶ w̶a̶n̶t̶ t̶o̶ s̶a̶y̶ a̶n̶d̶ f̶e̶e̶l̶ b̶u̶t̶ s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ m̶i̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ i̶t̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶ y̶o̶u̶r̶ c̶o̶m̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ o̶f̶ "t̶h̶e̶
>> s̶h̶o̶r̶t̶ k̶h̶a̶za̶r̶ g̶o̶y̶ m̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶f̶u̶c̶k̶e̶r̶ b̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶t̶ h̶e̶l̶l̶ o̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ f̶a̶c̶e̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶ e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶.
>> A̶m̶a̶zi̶n̶g̶" c̶o̶m̶m̶e̶n̶t̶" --- s̶o̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ b̶u̶t̶ s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ s̶o̶ f̶a̶r̶ a̶w̶a̶y̶ .
> H̶e̶ s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ b̶e̶ p̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ a̶t̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ t̶o̶ w̶h̶a̶t̶ h̶i̶s̶ c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶r̶y̶m̶e̶n̶ a̶r̶e̶ s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶
> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶ t̶o̶d̶a̶y̶. H̶e̶'d̶ b̶e̶ l̶a̶u̶g̶h̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ i̶f̶ h̶e̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶n̶'t̶ s̶o̶ p̶a̶t̶h̶e̶t̶i̶c̶.

you dementia hit babbling idiot, here is what Musk says about the 
Russians. Watch the picture too.

Musk calls out ‘crazy and cruel’ take on Russia
https://%72t.com/news/578807-musk-russia-graham-comments/
https://mf.b37mrtl.%72u/files/2023.06/l/649b0e0f85f54006b4448ce4.jpg

“This is Russia a day after the failed mutiny,” Ian Miles Cheong posted on 
Monday, with a 25-second video of dressed-up graduates singing 
*_‘I_am_Russian,’_* last summer’s hit song by the pop star Shaman. 

“That was a crazy and cruel thing for him to say,” Musk chimed in. “If 
those kids wanted to be at the front lines, 
*_they_wouldn't_need_to_be_conscripted_*.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603260

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-25 15:20 -0700
Message-ID<u7aek6$k662$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603258
On 6/25/2023 3:16 PM, Dustan Rademaker wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>>> you can't see you have another function fucked up before assignment. It
>>> has nothing to do with your truncation. See what "floor" stands for in
>>> physics, idiot.
>>>
>>> this imbecile is saying that 0.(9) is the same as 1.0, 0.999 and
>>> 0.999999.
>>> You lack basic education, idiot.
>>
>> Lol. I know exactly what the floor function does. Btw:
>> .99 is greater than .9
> 
> it's not about the greatness the discussion is about, idiot. Your
> fucking .99 has nothing to do with .(9). Now go fart yourself in sleep.

You are in a fog or something...

Lets check:

i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
...

i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....

We can say that when n is taken to infinity, it can equal one, just like 
.999... is one in base ten.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603261

FromVolney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date2023-06-25 18:26 -0400
Message-ID<u7aeun$k862$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603249
On 6/25/2023 5:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/25/2023 1:22 PM, Buddy Oorschot wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>>>> .999... gets closer and closer to one.
>>>>
>>>> it's not getting closer to any one. It's already fixed defined as 0.(9)
>>>> not getting closer to anything.
>>>
>>> Is .999999 closer to 1 than .999 ? ;^)
>>
>> it's not closer to anything, it stays in the definition, fucking stoopid,
>> which is 0.(9). There is nowhere .999999 nor .999. It's 0.(9), cretin. In
>> this aspect it depends on the region of interest, as you can go the
>> decimals you want in pico, femto. nano, fuck you, micro.
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
> 
> Right?
> 
> Lets check:
> 
> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
> ...
> 
> See?
> 
> Each iterate gets closer and closer to one. Got it?

That sequence gets closer and closer to 1 as you use more terms.

With an infinity of terms, there are an infinite number of 9s to the 
right of the decimal point, so it is 1.

Don't confuse the generating sequence with the final value.

As to Mitch, he simply doesn't understand the concept of limits, nor how 
real numbers work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603264

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-25 15:29 -0700
Message-ID<u7af4r$k662$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603261
On 6/25/2023 3:26 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/25/2023 5:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/25/2023 1:22 PM, Buddy Oorschot wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> .999... gets closer and closer to one.
>>>>>
>>>>> it's not getting closer to any one. It's already fixed defined as 
>>>>> 0.(9)
>>>>> not getting closer to anything.
>>>>
>>>> Is .999999 closer to 1 than .999 ? ;^)
>>>
>>> it's not closer to anything, it stays in the definition, fucking 
>>> stoopid,
>>> which is 0.(9). There is nowhere .999999 nor .999. It's 0.(9), 
>>> cretin. In
>>> this aspect it depends on the region of interest, as you can go the
>>> decimals you want in pico, femto. nano, fuck you, micro.
>>
>> Check this out:
>>
>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> Lets check:
>>
>> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
>> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
>> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
>> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
>> ...
>>
>> See?
>>
>> Each iterate gets closer and closer to one. Got it?
> 
> That sequence gets closer and closer to 1 as you use more terms.
> 
> With an infinity of terms, there are an infinite number of 9s to the 
> right of the decimal point, so it is 1.
> 
> Don't confuse the generating sequence with the final value.

Right:

i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999.... = 1

As n is taken to infinity...

> 
> As to Mitch, he simply doesn't understand the concept of limits, nor how 
> real numbers work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603269

FromEzra Venn <rene@nvanarvz.vn>
Date2023-06-25 22:49 +0000
Message-ID<u7aga3$2cinb$1@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to#603261
Volney wrote:

> With an infinity of terms, there are an infinite number of 9s to the
> right of the decimal point, so it is 1.

another big mouth on a face, doesn't undrestand what i̳n̳f̳i̳n̳i̳t̳y̳ stands for 
in math and physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603276

FromBen Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Date2023-06-26 00:14 +0100
Message-ID<87v8fb5e4l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
In reply to#603249
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> Check this out:
>
> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>
> Right?

No.  There is no n (in ℕ) that makes that equation hold.

> Lets check:

OK...

> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
> ...
>
> See?

Do you?  None of i[n] = 0.999...

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603278

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-25 16:19 -0700
Message-ID<u7ai29$ki7k$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603276
On 6/25/2023 4:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Check this out:
>>
>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>
>> Right?
> 
> No.  There is no n (in ℕ) that makes that equation hold.
> 
>> Lets check:
> 
> OK...
> 
>> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
>> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
>> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
>> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
>> ...
>>
>> See?
> 
> Do you?  None of i[n] = 0.999...
> 

When n is taken to infinity, it equals .(9), right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603279

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-25 16:23 -0700
Message-ID<u7ai9g$ki7k$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603278
On 6/25/2023 4:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/25/2023 4:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Check this out:
>>>
>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>>
>>> Right?
>>
>> No.  There is no n (in ℕ) that makes that equation hold.
>>
>>> Lets check:
>>
>> OK...
>>
>>> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
>>> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
>>> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
>>> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
>>> ...
>>>
>>> See?
>>
>> Do you?  None of i[n] = 0.999...
>>
> 
> When n is taken to infinity, it equals .(9), right?

n is without limit. Therefore the iterates go on forever and always get 
closer and closer to one. .999... = 1

I am not exactly sure why:

i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9

would not equal .(9) when n is taken to infinity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603287

FromBen Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Date2023-06-26 00:42 +0100
Message-ID<87jzvr5ctl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
In reply to#603279
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> On 6/25/2023 4:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/25/2023 4:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Check this out:
>>>>
>>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>>>
>>>> Right?
>>>
>>> No.  There is no n (in ℕ) that makes that equation hold.
>>>
>>>> Lets check:
>>>
>>> OK...
>>>
>>>> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
>>>> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
>>>> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
>>>> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> See?
>>>
>>> Do you?  None of i[n] = 0.999...
>>>
>> When n is taken to infinity, it equals .(9), right?
>
> n is without limit. Therefore the iterates go on forever and always get
> closer and closer to one. .999... = 1

Are you trying to say that lim_{n->oo} i[n] = 1?

> I am not exactly sure why:
>
> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>
> would not equal .(9) when n is taken to infinity.

lim_{n->oo} i[n] = 1.  Is that what you mean?

My objection was to this:

  i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....

It looks like an equation, but there is no n that satisfies it.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603288

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-25 16:59 -0700
Message-ID<u7akdd$kqdf$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603287
On 6/25/2023 4:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 6/25/2023 4:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2023 4:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Check this out:
>>>>>
>>>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>>>>
>>>>> Right?
>>>>
>>>> No.  There is no n (in ℕ) that makes that equation hold.
>>>>
>>>>> Lets check:
>>>>
>>>> OK...
>>>>
>>>>> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
>>>>> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
>>>>> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
>>>>> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> See?
>>>>
>>>> Do you?  None of i[n] = 0.999...
>>>>
>>> When n is taken to infinity, it equals .(9), right?
>>
>> n is without limit. Therefore the iterates go on forever and always get
>> closer and closer to one. .999... = 1
> 
> Are you trying to say that lim_{n->oo} i[n] = 1?

i[n] just denotes the iterates of:

i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9

the infinite iterates are .(9)




> 
>> I am not exactly sure why:
>>
>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>>
>> would not equal .(9) when n is taken to infinity.
> 
> lim_{n->oo} i[n] = 1.  Is that what you mean?
> 
> My objection was to this:
> 
>    i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
> 
> It looks like an equation, but there is no n that satisfies it.
> 

i[n] means use n in the formula, so lets break it down for the first 
couple of iterates:

i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
...

i[9] would be:

(floor(1/9 * 10^9) / 10^9) * 9

that equals .999999999

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603290

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-25 17:03 -0700
Message-ID<u7akjm$kqdf$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603288
On 6/25/2023 4:59 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/25/2023 4:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 6/25/2023 4:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2023 4:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Check this out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.  There is no n (in ℕ) that makes that equation hold.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets check:
>>>>>
>>>>> OK...
>>>>>
>>>>>> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
>>>>>> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
>>>>>> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
>>>>>> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you?  None of i[n] = 0.999...
>>>>>
>>>> When n is taken to infinity, it equals .(9), right?
>>>
>>> n is without limit. Therefore the iterates go on forever and always get
>>> closer and closer to one. .999... = 1
>>
>> Are you trying to say that lim_{n->oo} i[n] = 1?
> 
> i[n] just denotes the iterates of:
> 
> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
> 
> the infinite iterates are .(9)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>> I am not exactly sure why:
>>>
>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>>>
>>> would not equal .(9) when n is taken to infinity.
>>
>> lim_{n->oo} i[n] = 1.  Is that what you mean?
>>
>> My objection was to this:
>>
>>    i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>
>> It looks like an equation, but there is no n that satisfies it.
>>
> 
> i[n] means use n in the formula, so lets break it down for the first 
> couple of iterates:
> 
> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
> ...
> 
> i[9] would be:
> 
> (floor(1/9 * 10^9) / 10^9) * 9
> 
> that equals .999999999

I can write the Mandelbrot set the same way:

i[n] = i[n - 1]^2 + c

c = -.75+0i

i[0] = -1+0i
______________________
i[1] = i[0]^2 + c
i[2] = i[1]^2 + c
i[3] = i[2]^2 + c
______________________

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603291

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-25 17:03 -0700
Message-ID<u7akla$kqdf$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603290
On 6/25/2023 5:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/25/2023 4:59 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/25/2023 4:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 6/25/2023 4:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2023 4:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Check this out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.  There is no n (in ℕ) that makes that equation hold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lets check:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
>>>>>>> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
>>>>>>> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
>>>>>>> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you?  None of i[n] = 0.999...
>>>>>>
>>>>> When n is taken to infinity, it equals .(9), right?
>>>>
>>>> n is without limit. Therefore the iterates go on forever and always get
>>>> closer and closer to one. .999... = 1
>>>
>>> Are you trying to say that lim_{n->oo} i[n] = 1?
>>
>> i[n] just denotes the iterates of:
>>
>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>>
>> the infinite iterates are .(9)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I am not exactly sure why:
>>>>
>>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>>>>
>>>> would not equal .(9) when n is taken to infinity.
>>>
>>> lim_{n->oo} i[n] = 1.  Is that what you mean?
>>>
>>> My objection was to this:
>>>
>>>    i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .999....
>>>
>>> It looks like an equation, but there is no n that satisfies it.
>>>
>>
>> i[n] means use n in the formula, so lets break it down for the first 
>> couple of iterates:
>>
>> i[0] = (floor(1/9 * 10^0) / 10^0) * 9 = 0
>> i[1] = (floor(1/9 * 10^1) / 10^1) * 9 = .9
>> i[2] = (floor(1/9 * 10^2) / 10^2) * 9 = .99
>> i[3] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = .999
>> ...
>>
>> i[9] would be:
>>
>> (floor(1/9 * 10^9) / 10^9) * 9
>>
>> that equals .999999999
> 
> I can write the Mandelbrot set the same way:
> 
> i[n] = i[n - 1]^2 + c
> 
> c = -.75+0i
> 
> i[0] = -1+0i
> ______________________
> i[1] = i[0]^2 + c
> i[2] = i[1]^2 + c
> i[3] = i[2]^2 + c
> ______________________
> 
> 

Oops! That would be a Julia set, sorry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603295

FromBen Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Date2023-06-26 02:20 +0100
Message-ID<87ilbb3tpz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
In reply to#603290
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> I can write the [Julia] set the same way:
(your correction applied)

> i[n] = i[n - 1]^2 + c
>
> c = -.75+0i
>
> i[0] = -1+0i

No, this is not the definition of any set, much less a Julia set.  I
know what you are getting at, but it's interesting that you think you
have defined any set at all.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603299

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-25 19:31 -0700
Message-ID<u7atac$pd1c$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603295
On 6/25/2023 6:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I can write the [Julia] set the same way:
> (your correction applied)
> 
>> i[n] = i[n - 1]^2 + c
>>
>> c = -.75+0i
>>
>> i[0] = -1+0i
> 
> No, this is not the definition of any set, much less a Julia set.  I
> know what you are getting at, but it's interesting that you think you
> have defined any set at all.
> 

I can also write the recursion as:

i[n + 1] = i[n]^2 + c

I find this easy to read. Keep in mind that I am not a mathematician.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603334

FromBen Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Date2023-06-26 14:57 +0100
Message-ID<87pm5i2uoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
In reply to#603299
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> On 6/25/2023 6:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> I can write the [Julia] set the same way:
>> (your correction applied)
>> 
>>> i[n] = i[n - 1]^2 + c
>>>
>>> c = -.75+0i
>>>
>>> i[0] = -1+0i
>> No, this is not the definition of any set, much less a Julia set.  I
>> know what you are getting at, but it's interesting that you think you
>> have defined any set at all.
>> 
>
> I can also write the recursion as:
>
> i[n + 1] = i[n]^2 + c
>
> I find this easy to read. Keep in mind that I am not a mathematician.

It's impossible to forget!  A mathematician defining a set would define
a set, not a recurrence relation.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603370

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 12:39 -0700
Message-ID<u7cph5$1215e$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603334
On 6/26/2023 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 6/25/2023 6:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I can write the [Julia] set the same way:
>>> (your correction applied)
>>>
>>>> i[n] = i[n - 1]^2 + c
>>>>
>>>> c = -.75+0i
>>>>
>>>> i[0] = -1+0i
>>> No, this is not the definition of any set, much less a Julia set.  I
>>> know what you are getting at, but it's interesting that you think you
>>> have defined any set at all.
>>>
>>
>> I can also write the recursion as:
>>
>> i[n + 1] = i[n]^2 + c
>>
>> I find this easy to read. Keep in mind that I am not a mathematician.
> 
> It's impossible to forget!  A mathematician defining a set would define
> a set, not a recurrence relation.
> 

I feed of off recurrence relations! Like to try to turn recursive 
algorithms into iterative algorithms. Too many fractals on the brain. 
Then, I also like to try to get a direct formula to a specific iterate 
in a recurrence relation. A direct formula instead of an iterative 
formula. Think of getting the result of the 42'nd iteration without 
having to iterate up to it. A direct formula.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web