[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> and infinitary reasoning, that doesn't.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Then at least we got particle/wave duality as super-classical,   
   >>>> then Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical were   
   >>>> just given as that the infinite limit as introduced in pre-calculus   
   >>>> said we could ignore the deductive result that it really must complete,   
   >>>> the geometric series.   
   >>>   
   >>> Then again, one can define the reals as the convergences of   
   >>> uncountably infinitely many infinite series. There is no differece   
   >>> between 0.999... and 1, they are simply two different representations   
   >>> of the same mathematical object.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Bullshit. The point in question is exactly whether what you say is   
   >> bullshit :)   
   >>   
   >> The answer to the baby problem shows, quite simply, that X is indeed   
   >> 0.9999... and _certainly_ not 1.   
   >>   
   >> Physics, only in its most useful form for humans, can speak for   
   >> mathematics (that's where 1 + 1 equals 2 comes from - from direct   
   >> observation by humans); and mathematics in general does not speak for   
   >> physics at any level, for human or for future superhumans and AI all. It   
   >> is only rarely used when techniques developed in math would help physics   
   >> in its use for humans to eventually solve problems, again for humans.   
   >>   
   >> If you need help seeing the above baby problem's answer, then beg for   
   >> it :)   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > No, don't be making problems when there's a mis-understanding.   
   >   
   > It is so that the modern model of real numbers is as of   
   > "equivalence classes of sequences with the property of being Cauchy",   
   > then as with regards to whether both least-upper-bound property and   
   > measure 1.0 are stipulated rather than derived, has that here it's   
   > acknolwedged that LUB is stipulated and measure 1.0 is stipulated   
   > with regards to the objects of analysis meeting the objects of geometry,   
   > where for example Hilbert says "there must be a postulate   
   > of continuity" as with regards to Leibniz' "there _is_ a principle   
   > of perfection".   
   >   
   > Then, Dedekind is considered a sort of mere hanger-on and it's so   
   > that models of reals as Dedekind cuts are considered shallow and   
   > as after an assignment that presumes what it intends to demonstrate.   
   >   
   > Two wrongs is two wrongs.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   But I (and my past audience in that linux newsgroup) am not that   
   concerned to go that much down into the nitty gritty of this thing. The   
   point in my blog there was to test the audience whether they were   
   actually "programmers" like a programmer really is, or they were mere   
   "code monkeys" hired by real programmers, to receive the menial parts of   
   work, yet coming in the scene here in usenet pretending to be   
   programmers. This was the whole point of that blog.   
      
   And only one among them, Farley Flud, proved to be a real programmer. I   
   understood that by watching how he _tackles_ these baby problems. Nobody   
   else there, including many "engineers" and "computer scientists" there   
   were actually programmers.   
      
   That's the level at which my baby problem was posed. I have not delved   
   (or dived) into deeper areas as you do, and can not understand what   
   you're saying without spending a whole day with my books to review stuff   
   so I could take a good look at it at least. And I won't. Solution to   
   that baby problem doesn't require that level of scrutiny.   
      
   Would you like to see the solution?   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)