[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> a continuous domain "line reals" to go along with the usual standard   
   >>>>>> linear curriculum's "field reals" then furthermore later there's   
   >>>>>> a "signal reals" of at least these three models of continuous   
   >>>>>> domains.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The usual demonstration after introducing the repeating terminus   
   >>>>>> and using algebra to demonstrate a fact about arithmetic,   
   >>>>>> is good for itself, and is one of the primary simplifications   
   >>>>>> of the linear curriculum, yet as a notation, it's natural that   
   >>>>>> two different systems of notation can see it variously, then   
   >>>>>> that it merely demands a sort of book-keeping, to disambiguate it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If you ever wonder why mathematics didn't have one of these,   
   >>>>>> or, two of these as it were together, it does, and it's only   
   >>>>>> a particular field of mathematics sort of absent the super-classical   
   >>>>>> 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?   
   >   
   >   
   > You mean what's its model of atomicity?   
   >   
   > Yeah, go ahead and uniquify that.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   Hahhahhahhahh :-) I like that :) But remember, you should not mistake   
   Physfit's dick with Physfit! .. Physfit himself never posts to usenet.   
      
      
   X = 0.9999...   
   10X = (9 +1)0.9999...   
   10X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999...   
   after subtraction of first equation from the last one:   
   10X - X = 9(0.9999...) + 0.9999... - 0.9999...   
   9X = 9(0.9999...)   
   X = 0.9999...   
      
   Therefore the so called "programmer" of HelloFresh company creating that   
   test to check whether a robot was ordering or a human, was just a "code   
   monkey" mistakenly hired as a real programmer.   
      
   But back to what Kosmanson was saying. My question was whether   
   Kosmanson's concern applied to the fact that 10 times 0.9999... is   
   really not 9.9999... Cause it's really not 9.999... !   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)