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

#603363

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 12:28 -0700
Message-ID<u7cotn$1215e$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603354
On 6/26/2023 10:11 AM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> 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!

.(9) = one in base 10

On a step-by-step basis, building up 0, .9, .99, .999, ... taken to 
infinity equals .(9) and has a limit of one, and it equals one.

Fair enough?

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

#603377

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 12:57 -0700
Message-ID<5585cfbf-fdd6-462b-8f94-547ed113f1efn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603363
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 9:29:05 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On a step-by-step basis, building up 0, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... taken to infinity equals 0.(9)

Seems that you are talking about the outcome of a supertask.*)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertask

In math: The sequence (0.9, 0,99, 0,999, ...)

> has [the] limit [...] one

__________________________

*) You are in good company then. WM likes to do that too.

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

#603382

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 13:05 -0700
Message-ID<u7cr34$12d4m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603377
On 6/26/2023 12:57 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 9:29:05 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> On a step-by-step basis, building up 0, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... taken to infinity equals 0.(9)
> 
> Seems that you are talking about the outcome of a supertask.*)
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertask
> 
> In math: The sequence (0.9, 0,99, 0,999, ...)
> 
>> has [the] limit [...] one
> 
> __________________________
> 
> *) You are in good company then. WM likes to do that too.

I am just saying that the contrived formula I created produces an 
infinite list of iterates. Afaict, it equals .(9) when taken to 
infinity, there for it equals one when n is taken to infinity:

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

Where I am going wrong here?

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

#603391

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 13:17 -0700
Message-ID<f7f09b91-49fd-4443-a738-d6b5b7bb176fn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603382
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:06:06 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 12:57 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote: 
> > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 9:29:05 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: 
> > 
> >> On a step-by-step basis, building up 0, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... taken to infinity equals 0.(9) 
> > 
> > Seems that you are talking about the outcome of a supertask.*) 
> > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertask 
> > 
> > In math: The sequence (0.9, 0,99, 0,999, ...) 
> > 
> >> has [the] limit [...] one 
> > 
> > __________________________ 
> > 
> > *) You are in good company then. WM likes to do that too.
> I am just saying that the contrived formula I created produces an 
> infinite list of iterates.

No, you are NOT just saying THAT.

Actually, IN ADDITION you state:

> Afaict, it equals .(9) when taken to infinity

Which is either nonense or mumbo-jumbo (at best).

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

> there for it equals one when n is taken to infinity: 
> 
> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .(9) = 1 

SHUT UP, YOU SILLY ASSHOLE! SEEMS THAT YOU ARE JUST TOO DENSE FOR MATH (JUST LIKE WM, GB and ChatGTP).

LOOK DUMBO, THERE IS NO n (in IN) such that i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .(9) = 1.

WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU?!

Now you refer to the following (infinite) list:
> _____________________
> 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 
> ...
> _____________________ 
> 
> Where I am going wrong here?

I ALREADY TOLD YOU, IDIOT:

There is no line

i[oo] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = 1

in your (infinite) list.

ON THE OTHER HAND: FOR EACH AND EVERE n e IN: i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 < 1.

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

#603395

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 13:29 -0700
Message-ID<u7csen$12gpa$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603391
On 6/26/2023 1:17 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:06:06 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/26/2023 12:57 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 9:29:05 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a step-by-step basis, building up 0, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... taken to infinity equals 0.(9)
>>>
>>> Seems that you are talking about the outcome of a supertask.*)
>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertask
>>>
>>> In math: The sequence (0.9, 0,99, 0,999, ...)
>>>
>>>> has [the] limit [...] one
>>>
>>> __________________________
>>>
>>> *) You are in good company then. WM likes to do that too.
>> I am just saying that the contrived formula I created produces an
>> infinite list of iterates.
> 
> No, you are NOT just saying THAT.
> 
> Actually, IN ADDITION you state:
> 
>> Afaict, it equals .(9) when taken to infinity
> 
> Which is either nonense or mumbo-jumbo (at best).
> 
> Try to use standard notation and terminology, if you are interested in a "dialog" (with people trained in math).
> 
>> there for it equals one when n is taken to infinity:
>>
>> i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .(9) = 1
> 
> SHUT UP, YOU SILLY ASSHOLE! SEEMS THAT YOU ARE JUST TOO DENSE FOR MATH (JUST LIKE WM, GB and ChatGTP).
> 
> LOOK DUMBO, THERE IS NO n (in IN) such that i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 = .(9) = 1.
> 
> WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU?!
> 
> Now you refer to the following (infinite) list:
>> _____________________
>> 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
>> ...
>> _____________________
>>
>> Where I am going wrong here?
> 
> I ALREADY TOLD YOU, IDIOT:
> 
> There is no line
> 
> i[oo] = (floor(1/9 * 10^3) / 10^3) * 9 = 1
> 
> in your (infinite) list.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND: FOR EACH AND EVERE n e IN: i[n] = (floor(1/9 * 10^n) / 10^n) * 9 < 1.
> 

I sure do think that my formula creates infinite 9's as in 0, .9, .99, 
.999, ...

Therefore it should equal the way base 10 represents 1/9 as in infinite 
string of ones, 0, .1, .11, .111, ...

:^)

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

#603408

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 14:32 -0700
Message-ID<866000a0-ad17-4b58-a6a7-fdf5c72b693an@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603395
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:29:21 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> I sure do think that my formula creates infinite 9's as in 0, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... 

So what, none of these numbers is 0.999 ... =  1.

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

#603413

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 14:47 -0700
Message-ID<u7d11l$137m2$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603408
On 6/26/2023 2:32 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:29:21 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> I sure do think that my formula creates infinite 9's as in 0, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...
> 
> So what, none of these numbers is 0.999 ... =  1.

One of the iterates are equal to one, however it does end up producing 
.(9). Think of 1/9 producing .(1)

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

#603415

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 14:56 -0700
Message-ID<u7d1j4$137m2$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603413
On 6/26/2023 2:47 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 2:32 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:29:21 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> I sure do think that my formula creates infinite 9's as in 0, 0.9, 
>>> 0.99, 0.999, ...
>>
>> So what, none of these numbers is 0.999 ... =  1.
> 
> One of the iterates are equal to one, however it does end up producing 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> .(9). Think of 1/9 producing .(1)

GOD DAMN IT!!!!

NONE of the iterates are equal to one.

Sorry! ;^o

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

#603416

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:01 -0700
Message-ID<c3782bab-d15e-44ad-9133-eda746fd5fcen@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603413
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:47:42 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> > So what, none of these numbers is 0.999 ... = 1.
> >

LOOK,  YOU PSYCHOTIC ASSHOLE:

> [NONE] of the iterates [is] equal to one, 

> however it does end up producing 

An infinite process does not "end up".

DAMN, YOU CRANKS are a real pain in the ass.

Hint: Only a SUPERTASK has an end. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertask

I TOLD  YOU THAT ALREADY!!!  WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU CRANKS?!

A HEAP OF SHIT IN YOUR SKULS INSTEAD A BRAIN?

*** PLONK ***

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

#603420

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:06 -0700
Message-ID<u7d24l$13eeq$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603416
On 6/26/2023 3:01 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:47:42 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>>> So what, none of these numbers is 0.999 ... = 1.
>>>
> 
> LOOK,  YOU PSYCHOTIC ASSHOLE:
> 
>> [NONE] of the iterates [is] equal to one,
> 
>> however it does end up producing
> 
> An infinite process does not "end up".
> 
> DAMN, YOU CRANKS are a real pain in the ass.
> 
> Hint: Only a SUPERTASK has an end. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertask
> 
> I TOLD  YOU THAT ALREADY!!!  WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU CRANKS?!
> 
> A HEAP OF SHIT IN YOUR SKULS INSTEAD A BRAIN?
> 
> *** PLONK ***

Are you having a bad hair day or something?

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

#603424

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:15 -0700
Message-ID<a9455b5f-d978-4694-9aaa-9f0568505758n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603420
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:06:22 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> Are you having a bad hair day or something?

No, only an inflation of idiots on sci.math.

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

#603426

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:19 -0700
Message-ID<u7d2uf$13eeq$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603424
On 6/26/2023 3:15 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:06:22 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> Are you having a bad hair day or something?
> 
> No, only an inflation of idiots on sci.math.

Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact that 
.(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.

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

#603429

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:20 -0700
Message-ID<u7d302$13eeq$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603426
On 6/26/2023 3:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 3:15 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:06:22 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> Are you having a bad hair day or something?
>>
>> No, only an inflation of idiots on sci.math.
> 
> Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact that 
> .(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.

Need to clarify that .(9) is how base 10 can represent one, also base 
ten can use .(1) to represent 1/9

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

#603430

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:24 -0700
Message-ID<3cd77ac0-23b4-41d5-9a54-173345809156n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603426
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:20:09 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact that 
> .(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.

ALL mathematical facts just are or aren't: no time used.

Holy shit! Did you EVER learn some math? (It seems to me that you are on a par with Mückenheim.)

EOD

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

#603433

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:32 -0700
Message-ID<u7d3lf$13eeq$8@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603430
On 6/26/2023 3:24 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:20:09 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact that
>> .(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.
> 
> ALL mathematical facts just are or aren't: no time used.

in base ten:

.(9) = 1

.(1) = 1/9

.(1) * .(9) = .(1) = 1/9

.(1) * 9 = .(9) = 1

1/9 * 9 = 1

Why do you seem to think that I somehow deny that?


> 
> Holy shit! Did you EVER learn some math? (It seems to me that you are on a par with Mückenheim.)
> 
> EOD

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

#603431

FromMaron Andel <nado@eredlemn.rl>
Date2023-06-26 22:25 +0000
Message-ID<u7d397$2q44i$1@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to#603426
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/26/2023 3:15 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:06:22 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson
>> wrote:
>>> Are you having a bad hair day or something?
>> No, only an inflation of idiots on sci.math.
> Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact that
> .(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.

cretin.

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

#603435

FromFritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:33 -0700
Message-ID<5c64e3dc-d137-41d7-944d-d388efa7a921n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#603431
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:25:52 AM UTC+2, Maron Andel wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: 
> >
> > Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact that 0.(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.
> >
> cretin.

Isn't that a little harsh? /Moron/ might do.

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

#603441

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-26 15:59 -0700
Message-ID<u7d58b$13sfq$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603435
On 6/26/2023 3:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:25:52 AM UTC+2, Maron Andel wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>> Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact that 0.(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.
>>>
>> cretin.
> 
> Isn't that a little harsh? /Moron/ might do.

in base 10:

.(1) = 1/9

.(1) * 9 = .(9) = 1

.(9) = 1

What is wrong with that?

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

#603456

FromVolney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date2023-06-26 22:36 -0400
Message-ID<u7di0b$199be$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603441
On 6/26/2023 6:59 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 3:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:25:52 AM UTC+2, Maron Andel wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact 
>>>> that 0.(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.
>>>>
>>> cretin.
>>
>> Isn't that a little harsh? /Moron/ might do.
> 
> in base 10:
> 
> .(1) = 1/9
> 
> .(1) * 9 = .(9) = 1
> 
> .(9) = 1
> 
> What is wrong with that?

Elsewhere you were using ∞ as a number rather than a limit, by 
indirectly stating that i[∞] = 0.999... Infinity isn't included in the 
reals. It is a limit. Same for infinitesimals, this is where Mitch gets 
himself in trouble, especially with such claims as .999... = 
[infinitesimal]*(∞-1), or an infinitesimal less than 1 
([infinitesimal]*∞ according to Mitch), which is not valid.

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

#603493

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-27 12:07 -0700
Message-ID<u7fc22$1ffv8$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#603456
On 6/26/2023 7:36 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 6:59 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/26/2023 3:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:25:52 AM UTC+2, Maron Andel wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Constructing .(9) on a per-iterate basis does not change the fact 
>>>>> that 0.(9) = 1 in an instant, no time used.
>>>>>
>>>> cretin.
>>>
>>> Isn't that a little harsh? /Moron/ might do.
>>
>> in base 10:
>>
>> .(1) = 1/9
>>
>> .(1) * 9 = .(9) = 1
>>
>> .(9) = 1
>>
>> What is wrong with that?
> 
> Elsewhere you were using ∞ as a number rather than a limit, by 
> indirectly stating that i[∞] = 0.999... Infinity isn't included in the 
> reals. It is a limit. Same for infinitesimals, this is where Mitch gets 
> himself in trouble, especially with such claims as .999... = 
> [infinitesimal]*(∞-1), or an infinitesimal less than 1 
> ([infinitesimal]*∞ according to Mitch), which is not valid.

I was just saying that .(9) can be constructed on a step-by-step basis. 
This is an infinite process that never ends. However, it does equal .(9) 
which is one way base 10 can represent 1.

is this horrible?

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web