Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: glarfieldiator_gif_3_by_el_cid_84-d5eboie.gif (325KB, 370x330px) Image search:
[Google]
325KB, 370x330px
Alright feel free to call me a retard if you like.
I'm in an intro to analysis course, and we've looked at intervals, and maxima / minima. Answer me this: If it is accepted that 0.9999... and 1 represent the same number. Now, consider the open ended interval [0,1). Then, any x in this interval will be 0 <= x < 1. So can x be equal to 0.9999... since there will be no maximum for this interval? In other words, we can get infinitely close to 1 but never arrive at one. The best approximation of "infinitely close to 1" is 0.9999..., but this is known to represent the same number. So logically x cannot be 0.9999... as it violates the interval. So then what is the approximation of "infinitely close to 1" in this case? Or am I totally off base here?
>>
>>7794697
>If it is accepted that 0.9999... and 1 represent the same number. Now, consider the open ended interval [0,1). Then, any x in this interval will be 0 <= x < 1. So can x be equal to 1...
>>
>>7794697
The interval [0,1) has no maximal value. That's essentially the mistaken assumption you're making. Infinitely close to 1 is 1 and the interval does not contain it.
>>
0.999... is a hypothetical number that is not contained in the set [0,1)
>>
it seems like semantics..
.9999 only equals 1 if it continues forever..
>>
>>
>>7794697
This is all notational semantics. You need to recognize the boundaries of mathematics as a language to describe real things.
>>
>>7794716
oh fuckin duh ok that clears it up. i figured i was wrong but i wasnt exactly sure where it was.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2