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

#603387

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 13:13 -0700
Message-ID<u7crhj$1215e$7@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603385
On 6/26/2023 1:09 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 9:27:29 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> The limit of:
>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>> when n is taken to infinity is one
>>
>> Clear enough?
> 
> *sigh* Why don't you just use standard notation and terminology?

Well, i am not a mathematician. So, I always seem to tend to do things 
from a programmers point of view. I love iteration and recursion, (well 
as long as the recursion does not blow the threads stack), anyway... So, 
I prefer iteration over recursion. ;^)


> | i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 (for all n e IN)
> |
> | lim_(n-->oo) i[n] = 1.
> 
> Hint: The latter can also be written like this
> 
> | i[n] --> 1 as n --> oo.
> [Read: "i[n] approaches 1 as n approaches oo."]
> 
> See (!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)

i[n] --> 1 as n --> oo

Imvvho, this is a bit too "high level" for me because it omits the 
underlying logic that describes how to calculate the n'th iterate. 
Basically, how to get there, aka:

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

Humm...

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

#603389

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 13:15 -0700
Message-ID<u7crll$1215e$8@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603387
On 6/26/2023 1:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 1:09 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 9:27:29 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> The limit of:
>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>>> when n is taken to infinity is one
>>>
>>> Clear enough?
>>
>> *sigh* Why don't you just use standard notation and terminology?
> 
> Well, i am not a mathematician. So, I always seem to tend to do things 
> from a programmers point of view. I love iteration and recursion, (well 
> as long as the recursion does not blow the threads stack), anyway... So, 
> I prefer iteration over recursion. ;^)
> 
> 
>> | i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 (for all n e IN)
>> |
>> | lim_(n-->oo) i[n] = 1.
>>
>> Hint: The latter can also be written like this
>>
>> | i[n] --> 1 as n --> oo.
>> [Read: "i[n] approaches 1 as n approaches oo."]
>>
>> See (!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)
> 
> i[n] --> 1 as n --> oo
> 
> Imvvho, this is a bit too "high level" for me because it omits the 
> underlying logic that describes how to calculate the n'th iterate. 

Oops! I missed your content here:


 >> | i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 (for all n e IN)
 >> |
 >> | lim_(n-->oo) i[n] = 1.

That shows all of it. Sorry for missing this key aspect of your 
response. ;^o


> Basically, how to get there, aka:
> 
> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
> 
> Humm...

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

#603392

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 13:21 -0700
Message-ID<d369ebfb-f373-4bcb-b5f3-6d29684f58cbn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603387
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:13:48 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 1:09 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote: 
> >
> > | i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 (for all n e IN) 
> > | 
> > | lim_(n-->oo) i[n] = 1. 
> > 
> > Hint: The latter can also be written like this 
> > 
> > | i[n] --> 1 as n --> oo.
> >
> > [Read: "i[n] approaches 1 as n approaches oo."] 
> > 
> > See (!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics) 
> 
> i[n] --> 1 as n --> oo
>
> [...] this is a bit too "high level" for me because it omits the 
> underlying logic that describes how to calculate the n'th iterate. 

THEN WRITE 

(floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 --> 1 as n --> oo

FOR HEAVENS SAKE!

.. if it's to hard for you to comprehend:

| If 
|
| i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 (for all n e IN) 
| 
| then
|
| i[n] --> 1 as n --> oo .

(Holy shit!)

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

#603419

FromBen Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Date2023-06-26 23:04 +0100
Message-ID<87mt0l284p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
In reply to#603362
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> The limit of:
>
> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>
> when n is taken to infinity is one
>
> Clear enough?

Just about.

But I'd write i_n = 1 - 10^-n instead of the messy

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

And I'd write it using lim notation, but that looks quite messy in
ASCII: lim_{n->oo} i_n = 1.

Mathematicians prefer subscripts to []s.

-- 
Ben.

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

#603421

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:09 -0700
Message-ID<u7d2ak$13eeq$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603419
On 6/26/2023 3:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> The limit of:
>>
>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>>
>> when n is taken to infinity is one
>>
>> Clear enough?
> 
> Just about.
> 
> But I'd write i_n = 1 - 10^-n instead of the messy
> 
>    i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9.
> 
> And I'd write it using lim notation, but that looks quite messy in
> ASCII: lim_{n->oo} i_n = 1.
> 
> Mathematicians prefer subscripts to []s.
> 

I am so used to writing subscripts using []. I have to get back into 
POSIX that loves underscores.

i_n instead of i[n]

Better? ;^)

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

#603422

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:12 -0700
Message-ID<u7d2fr$13eeq$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603421
On 6/26/2023 3:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 3:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The limit of:
>>>
>>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9
>>>
>>> when n is taken to infinity is one
>>>
>>> Clear enough?
>>
>> Just about.
>>
>> But I'd write i_n = 1 - 10^-n instead of the messy
>>
>>    i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9.
>>
>> And I'd write it using lim notation, but that looks quite messy in
>> ASCII: lim_{n->oo} i_n = 1.
>>
>> Mathematicians prefer subscripts to []s.
>>
> 
> I am so used to writing subscripts using []. I have to get back into 
> POSIX that loves underscores.
> 
> i_n instead of i[n]
> 
> Better? ;^)

Funny thing is that I am so used to underscores I use them all the time. 
Take a look at some of my code:

https://pastebin.com/raw/uD7s0B2e

Actually, this can be a fairly useful tool in certain scenarios. The multex.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c++/c/sV4WC_cBb9Q/m/SkSqpSxGCAAJ

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

#603427

FromBen Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Date2023-06-26 23:20 +0100
Message-ID<87fs6dc1d9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
In reply to#603422
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> Funny thing is that I am so used to underscores I use them all the
> time. Take a look at some of my code:

That's a different use of underscore.

-- 
Ben.

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

#603434

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:33 -0700
Message-ID<u7d3ni$13eeq$9@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603427
On 6/26/2023 3:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Funny thing is that I am so used to underscores I use them all the
>> time. Take a look at some of my code:
> 
> That's a different use of underscore.
> 

i[n] = i_n where:

i[0] = i_0
i[1] = i_1
i[2] = i_2
i[3] = i_3
...

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

#603436

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:36 -0700
Message-ID<u7d3t0$13eeq$10@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603427
On 6/26/2023 3:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Funny thing is that I am so used to underscores I use them all the
>> time. Take a look at some of my code:
> 
> That's a different use of underscore.
> 

What about:

i[x, y] would be i_x_y notation?

i[41, 42] = i_41_42 ?

The former seems more natural to me as a programmer.

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

#603445

FromFromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Date2023-06-26 19:32 -0400
Message-ID<u7d772$145pb$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603436
Chris M. Thomasson laid this down on his screen :
> On 6/26/2023 3:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Funny thing is that I am so used to underscores I use them all the
>>> time. Take a look at some of my code:
>> 
>> That's a different use of underscore.
>> 
>
> What about:
>
> i[x, y] would be i_x_y notation?

No, the underscore simply means the next symbol (possibly a sequence of 
glyphs in a particular order) is subscripted just as the caret ^ is 
used to indicate it is superscripted.
so, k to the xy would be k^xy not k^x^y. I not even sure what you mean 
be subscripting an x and a y without knowing what is behind that square 
bracket notation. Is that simply a 2D 'matrix' rather than a linear 
array?

> i[41, 42] = i_41_42 ?
>
> The former seems more natural to me as a programmer.

Programming can make it hard to think mathematically. OTOH computers 
are an essential tool these days for much of mathematics.

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

#603447

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 16:49 -0700
Message-ID<eee94d68-59ba-4c9b-a5b1-1acc62fdbfden@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603445
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 1:32:59 AM UTC+2, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson laid this down on his screen :
> >
> > i[41, 42] = i_41_42 ? 

i_41,42.

a[n, m] = a_n,m.

> > The former seems more natural to me as a programmer.
> >
> Programming can make it hard to think mathematically. OTOH computers 
> are an essential tool these days for much of mathematics.

On the other hand, (modern) "computers" clearly are based on mathematics. (The are not just clocks.)

Turing, von Neumann, etc. come to mind.

_Concept of modern computer_

The principle of the modern computer was proposed by Alan Turing in his seminal 1936 paper,[45] On Computable Numbers. Turing proposed a simple device that he called "Universal Computing machine" and that is now known as a universal Turing machine. He proved that such a machine is capable of computing anything that is computable by executing instructions (program) stored on tape, allowing the machine to be programmable. The fundamental concept of Turing's design is the stored program, where all the instructions for computing are stored in memory. Von Neumann acknowledged that the central concept of the modern computer was due to this paper.[46] Turing machines are to this day a central object of study in theory of computation. Except for the limitations imposed by their finite memory stores, modern computers are said to be Turing-complete, which is to say, they have algorithm execution capability equivalent to a universal Turing machine.

Source: Wikipedia

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

#603457

FromRoss Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 20:31 -0700
Message-ID<62e18b28-3f46-48cd-98d8-03149841c8fcn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603447
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 4:49:12 PM UTC-7, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 1:32:59 AM UTC+2, FromTheRafters wrote: 
> > Chris M. Thomasson laid this down on his screen : 
> > >
> > > i[41, 42] = i_41_42 ?
> i_41,42. 
> 
> a[n, m] = a_n,m.
> > > The former seems more natural to me as a programmer. 
> > > 
> > Programming can make it hard to think mathematically. OTOH computers 
> > are an essential tool these days for much of mathematics.
> On the other hand, (modern) "computers" clearly are based on mathematics. (The are not just clocks.) 
> 
> Turing, von Neumann, etc. come to mind. 
> 
> _Concept of modern computer_ 
> 
> The principle of the modern computer was proposed by Alan Turing in his seminal 1936 paper,[45] On Computable Numbers. Turing proposed a simple device that he called "Universal Computing machine" and that is now known as a universal Turing machine. He proved that such a machine is capable of computing anything that is computable by executing instructions (program) stored on tape, allowing the machine to be programmable. The fundamental concept of Turing's design is the stored program, where all the instructions for computing are stored in memory. Von Neumann acknowledged that the central concept of the modern computer was due to this paper.[46] Turing machines are to this day a central object of study in theory of computation. Except for the limitations imposed by their finite memory stores, modern computers are said to be Turing-complete, which is to say, they have algorithm execution capability equivalent to a universal Turing machine. 
> 
> Source: Wikipedia

How is Sum_i=1^oo (1/2^i) = 1?

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

#603476

FromBen Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Date2023-06-27 16:15 +0100
Message-ID<87a5wlos1x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
In reply to#603457
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> writes:

> How is Sum_i=1^oo (1/2^i) = 1?

You must have access to the usual resources (books, tutorials,
explanatory videos), so what is it you don't understand?

-- 
Ben.

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

#603505

FromRoss Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-27 14:32 -0700
Message-ID<9b76bd99-cb9e-4681-87bb-7b0bf986cd76n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603476
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 8:15:17 AM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > How is Sum_i=1^oo (1/2^i) = 1?
> You must have access to the usual resources (books, tutorials, 
> explanatory videos), so what is it you don't understand? 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

Sure I do.  

It was sort of rhetorical, when the poster had it "can't be reached", 
and calculus is usually in the theory of limits, in infinite sums, 
it's often sort of averred that it's an infinite sum.

Here's a quick overview of what I think is "standard'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRr1gBLEmo0

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

#603521

FromBen Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Date2023-06-28 02:32 +0100
Message-ID<87r0pwnzgj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
In reply to#603505
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 8:15:17 AM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.f...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> 
>> > How is Sum_i=1^oo (1/2^i) = 1?
>> You must have access to the usual resources (books, tutorials, 
>> explanatory videos), so what is it you don't understand? 
>> 
> Sure I do.

Great.

-- 
Ben.

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

#603491

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-27 12:03 -0700
Message-ID<u7fbpf$1ffv8$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603447
On 6/26/2023 4:49 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 1:32:59 AM UTC+2, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson laid this down on his screen :
>>>
>>> i[41, 42] = i_41_42 ?
> 
> i_41,42.
> 
> a[n, m] = a_n,m.

Ahhh. Thanks. So If I wrote a 2d coordinate as in:

a[41, 42]

would piss the math people off. However, if I wrote:

a_41,42

then, it might not make them as mad?

My notation seems to get people really angry here.


[...]

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

#603501

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-27 13:11 -0700
Message-ID<648d671b-3389-4aec-ab98-1c56941e6936n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603491
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 9:03:21 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> [...] if I wrote: 
> 
> a_41,42 
> 
> then, it might not make them as mad? 

You may as well use a function notation, say, 

f(n, m) = n^2 + m.

> My notation seems to get people really angry here. 

I already told you:

| "Try to use standard notation and terminology, if you are interested in a "dialog" (with people trained in math)."

EOD

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

#603503

From"mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-27 13:27 -0700
Message-ID<fd282f8b-0328-4e67-ad17-e984ac68aaben@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603501
.999 repeating and the first integer are different in representation
and in quantity. The infinitesimal difference behaves like zero.
But there is more than an absolute zero equality.

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

#603437

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:37 -0700
Message-ID<u7d3v1$13n3j$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603427
On 6/26/2023 3:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Funny thing is that I am so used to underscores I use them all the
>> time. Take a look at some of my code:
> 
> That's a different use of underscore.
> 

I was trying to say that I am used to writing underscores all the time 
in my code, except when it comes to recurrence relations on this group.

;^o

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

#603354

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 10:11 -0700
Message-ID<f12f9681-ea7f-46c5-8d41-93e374a69021n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603300
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 4:33:19 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> If n is taken to infinity [then ...]

But only Chuck Norris could perform this act (it seems).

Remember: Chuck Norris counted do infinity - twice!

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web