Talk:0.999.../Archive 9

366:

this process never terminates." The typical reader neither uses nor feels comfortable with this language. (Nor with zooming in by an infinite amount!) Also, it gets us into dangerous territory. For example, a natural question it raises is, "How long do we have to wait to decide equality?" And the answer would seem to be, "Forever!" Not quite what we were going for, eh? In fact, one of the core mental errors people have in this area is a conception of limits as a process rather than a static fact. They want a definite answer sometime before they die, so they artificially terminate the process — and reach the wrong conclusion.

1574:". Possibly the 10-adic expression ...999 could make an appearance somewhere. "Applications" could use a second application to justify the plural: perhaps the role of the converse in the decimal proof that the reals are uncountable? "In popular culture" needs a bit of expansion, and finally-- this is the hard part, but doable-- the introductions of the three major proof sections should start explaining their contexts: the desirability of theorems with weak hypotheses, and the diversity of pedagogical treatments of real numbers. Any takers for those tasks? 3836:(As for half-open -type subdivisions, 1.000… becomes undefined. Either style breaks equivalency with the supremum definition and prevents one from applying the Nested Intervals Theorem. I can probably dig up a source for either convention, and Apostol considers both in parallel. We could put a note, possibly towards the top of "Nested intervals and least upper bounds" since that's where it becomes most relevant, that some authors refuse to define or even consider 0.999…, but nonetheless whenever it 346:"All numbers can be placed on the number line. If two points are in the same place on the number line they are the same number, if they are in different places they are different numbers. If you place 0.999... and 1 on the number line they appear to be in the same place. If you zoom in on the number line these two points still appear to be in the same place. If you zoom in by an infinite amount one still appears to be on top of the other. Therefore they must be the same number." 2679:. In my opinion, the article should be more general, giving historical context and analysis of skepticism over the equality to 1. This is already reflected in the body of the article, and the title should follow suit. If there is enough material, somewhere down the line the article could be split in two, with one devoted to proofs of the equality and the other devoted to everything else. This would follow the pattern of the articles you've cited. 31: 2630:, the title makes sense. But Melchoir has hated both the title and the content since first encountering the article, and has come back again and again and again to try to bend it to something different. Just recently, lacking supervision, Melchoir launched a large-scale assault. So please read what the article was before that when deciding what the title should be. Also, this is not the first time a move has been proposed, with Melchoir 1992:

at classical and established processes and not "news." Do you see what i mean? Calling it "Proof that..." led me to expect the article to be establishing something new, just as a newspaper headline might read, "Proof That There Are Planets Outside Our Solar System." I could be totally offbase or maybe just nit-picky, but I feel like it would give the article the informational we're looking for instead of an argumentative feel.

2939:, and leaving behind a lighter summary here. This move might become necessary, as the article is getting long. In fact, I can even envision two more sub-articles: one on connections with other mathematics (generalizations, applications, other number systems) and one on conceptual difficulties alone. But these are big decisions, and I'd rather postpone them until all the content is laid out and we can do a Peer Review. 3577:"The goal of this article is to enliven Abraham Robinson's concept of an infinitesimal by exhibiting infinitesimals in a simple and direct manner. ...To this end we shall exploit the familiar notion of the decimal expansion of a real number. After all, this notion improves our grasp of real numbers; just so, it will help us appreciate infinitesimals, indeed all numbers of our extended number system." 3877: 3787: 3734: 3540:(Okay, I wanted to make sure that you didn't think I was aggravating the situation.) Maybe we should err on the side of reversible, light-handed solutions for the article. If you cancel the request, the worst that could happen is a few more reverts. Meanwhile, we'll have the opportunity to capitalize on recent participation and take the article down the home stretch to GA. 3771:

rectangle depicts the part of the number line covered by ; the cyan ; the yellow ; and the gray . The upper segments and their rectangles are , , , and . The green line shows how the number 1 is contained in all of the intervals, and therefore can be written either as 0.222… or 1.000…. The extra gray marks are unused subdivision points. The vertical gray line is 0.

1769:...Okay, in addition to the reference I used just now, I also found "A sheaf of R-algebras on the set of Dual Numbers", whose author uses an "obvious and useful" metric topology and notes that other authors use different topologies. Of course, nobody is saying anything about 0.999…. Maybe we should just leave it the way it is and avoid drawing any conclusions. 1936:

flow more naturally into the following section on rational numbers. One of them will take the sequence limit within the real numbers; I realize that we were trying to avoid such a limit and the associated infinity sign, but it's an important idea that gets referenced again and again. Also, some subsections will have to be renamed more precisely.

2167:

started it, but my objection was taken as a signal to do even more. Previously there were exactly four proofs, each brief and each serving a different purpose. The history of Melchoir's opinions and "contributions" to this article has been one unmitigated disaster after another. It no longer benefits the audience that needs it. --

677:, Chapter 1, "Construction of the System of Real Numbers" G. Pickert and L. Görke provide several approaches. They first demonstrate an approach using decimal expansions, but note "addition can only be defined in a very lengthy way, and the rules for calculation are not very convenient to prove." They then note the fact that " 2654:

was never the only one to dislike both the content and title. The nature of the topic of this article (the fact that so many people seem to think that 0.999... ≠ 1) means that an article with just a proof (or proofs) won't really benefit anyone (I have the impression that anyone with enough knowledge

2166:

Hell no! Melchoir has trashed the article quite enough. We have a number of "Proof…" articles. This was a fine article, and will be again once I have the stomach to correct the damage that has been done to it. The "extensive proving" and out-of-control citing is absurd, as I pointed out when Melchoir

1935:

I've just made a trip through Google Book Search, and it appears that the treatment of 0.999… in real analysis textbooks is even more diverse than I thought. I'll be expanding the section, possibly adding a couple more subsections to clarify the differences; these will have the benefit that they will

1639:

I'm not sure that there's really a relevant difference between not recognizing the characters and not being able to execute the task. The whole danger with calculators as a thinking aid is that you don't have to interpret for them: they're supposed to be able to take an input as it looks on your page

658:

operator, and induction. And it turns out that he actually did this not just on his personal homepage, but in an MAA pedagogical publication! After I hit "Save page" on this comment, I'll hit "Save page" on the "Order proof" section of the article. It will be different, but hopefully not so different

365:

This is a version of the argument I have nicknamed the "squeeze proof". Many variations of this can be found on the web, though a lengthy Socratic dialog is unusual. Having read far too many debates in researching this article, I noticed that I balked early on here at the sentence, "They are equal if

472:

into a Socratic dialog! Nor would I say it is "obvious", for two reasons. One reason is that I've seen too many nay-sayers who want to insist on the existence of infinitesimals. The other is that we are perfectly capable of constructing number systems that somewhat resemble the rationals (or reals),

449:

Picture two kids playing a game of "name the largest number". The first says "one hundred", the second responds "one hundred and one", the first goes for "one bazillion", and the second counters with "one bazillion and one!" The game gets boring quickly; the kids needn't play forever to realize that

3635:

Well, that's reasonable. I could go either way on the sentence listing the methods; they're an important part of the article but maybe the reader doesn't care so early on. If you feel strongly about it, okay. But what about the former third paragraph on skepticism, popular discussion, and alternate

3172:

state it can be done, it can only apply to "numbers" which can be equated to a rational number, i.e., if both sequences are periodic. This pretty much amounts to equating a rational p-adic with the rational real, which seems arbitrary. (Furthermore, if we go to the p-adics, we have to mention the

2025:

I also sympathize about the opening sentence. The idea of approximate equality belongs in the "Skepticism" section, properly sourced of course, and in the lead section it should appear only alongside a statement about the frequent confusion surrounding 0.999…. You're welcome, of course, to edit the

1991:

I would also suggest one other small but significant change that would help someone like me understand what the point of the article is: Could we change the title to "Proofs that 999... equals 1"? I feel that simply making the title plural would immediately let a reader know that they are looking

3770:

Ideally an illustration should be understandable without a long caption, but just so we're on the same page.... the horizontal line is the real number line, and visual elements are displaced above or below it only so that they can be told apart; the vertical scale is meaningless. The lower magenta

3386:

Let's agree that the wholesale revert, without reaching consensus, was inappropriate. Let us also agree that it doesn't really matter - the article is adequate in its current form, and reverting it back and forth won't help anything. Our energies should be focused on discussing the desired form of

1950:

This article is quite interesting, but I'm not sure if it belongs in an encyclopedia instead of a journal of mathematics. I feel like an encyclopedia isn't really where I would look for a mathematical proof. It may just be the fact that I'm not a mathematics expert that makes me wonder. Perhaps

1304:

You reverted me because the definitions of "Dedekind cut" and "Archimedean" I found in the literature are different from the ones you personally prefer? One of them already has a citation to two references. I will add a citation for the other. If you have further questions, please direct them here

767:

rationals; and it's clearly not just a typo. It is also puzzling to see the name "cut" applied to a single set, rather than a pair of sets partitioning the rationals. Logically, the second set is merely the complement of the first in the reals and so would seem to convey no additional information;

3442:

Thanks for your ideas, everyone (especially those who complimented and started cleaning up my work)! My immediate concern, besides the desire to continue editing the article, is that with Chuayw2000's recent edits to KSmrq's version, a content fork has in some sense developed. We don't want to be

3040:

Third: Two editors with similar edit summaries do not make a consensus. Using a revert as an opportunity to vent frustration through the edit summary box is, in fact, actively harmful to the process of building consensus. There are many editors watching this article who would rather stay out of a

2682:

Attacking Melchoir, instead of the issue itself, does nothing to help anyone's cause. I dislike the phrase "large-scale assault" and your implication that an editor in good standing requires supervision, especially when none have voiced opposition to his edits except you. Yes, some of his edits

1987:

Thanks for your help. I think you're right, and a lead section would help immensely. Now that you mention it, I think it was the opening sentence that set me up to think of the whole article the wrong way. As it stands, it sounds a bit polemic, especially to a layman such as myself, as if the

3339:

I am well aware that double-decimals don't work in the p-adics. I did not claim that they did, nor did I write that they did in the article. Now, if I recall correctly, the reference requires only that the left end of the sequence is periodic. Either way, you are welcome to add a caveat to that

1380:

You distort the history. The chorus of answers to your old questions was "Stop calling standard mathematics Original Research." It was clear from your attitude at the time that you were extremely hostile and that such a citation would accomplish nothing. Then, too, I expended considerably words

585:

Thoroughly excellent! I was about to ask about this, whether the 'find a number between 0.999... and 1' is a proof or just a sneaky way to explain this to people. There is no number between 0.9999.... and 1 (because you can't just add another '9' in the trailing 9's), thus the two numbers are

1619:

The point is that the calculator doesn't recognize that character, not that the calculator can't do it (it can't anyway, but that's not what the picture is saying). It's like typing in 3×5 into a calculator that's looking for 3*5 and then saying that calculators struggle with multiplication.

2009:

Awesome! On the naming issue, my personal preference is simply "0.999…". The current title comes from early versions of the article that contained only a proof or proofs; it now contains much more material of general relevance to 0.999… from diverse approaches. (See, for example, the article

2091:

number between zero and one with an infinite number of nines after the decimal point. It can be proven that this number is, in fact, equal to one, a result which some/many people find counter-intuitive for a number of reasons." with, of course, appropriate sourcing for the various bits.

755:

authors, as a partition of the rationals satisfying certain properties. And so on. I took the liberty of cutting through the voluminous discussion to distill the parts relevant to this article, but the arguments — including the pivotal role of the Archimedean property — are essentially

1704:

Is that saying, possibly, that one applies the topology of the plane and not the natural order topology? If so, wouldn't 0.999… still be well-defined and equal to 1, just as in the regular complex numbers? Is there a source that addresses decimal expansions in these sets, anyway?

653:

Okay, since I was last seen here, I've lined up some half-dozen references. First up, and the most exciting, is a fresh look at one of the first sources ever to be mentioned on this talk page: Fred Richman. He uses Dedekind cuts in a way that avoids partitions, upper bounds, the

3090:). The other recent edits don't seem to agree with either group. 2 to 1 qualifies as a super-majority, if not a consensus. But, thinking about it, your proofs do seem better than the other version, for the most part. Perhaps I'll edit in some of the simpler versions, later. 445:

plays a decisive role. You might say it tells us we don't actually have to compare forever, so long as we are prepared to compare as much as needed on demand. For those who have studied calculus, the same kind of subtle but effective termination appears in the "epsilon-delta"

3741:

While we wait for things to settle down, I'll work on some images. If anyone has feedback on the illustration to the right or suggestions for other illustrations, fire away. I have the Adobe Illustrator sources of course, so even the most minor changes are easy to implement.

3432:

Without commenting on which version is better, I also agree that the wholesale reverting isn't helpful. There are multiple editors with 2 or 3 reverts on this article in the past couple of days. Given the long history here, perhaps mediation by a third party would be

2585:

about the number written "0.999…", but about proofs of an equality. Nor is the nature of the equality limited to this specific example, though the article has become so cluttered that the generality may no longer be clear. I draw your attention to the following list:

1640:

and give you the answer. I'm not aware of any calculator that inputs either three dots or an ellipsis and doesn't choke. As for syntax, I don't think we have to worry about a reader who thinks, "Well, if they'd put spaces between the dots, maybe it would have worked"!

774:, in section 14.8 discusses the fact that in many topoi not only are the reals defined by a "Cauchy" approach different from those defined by a "Dedekind" approach, but slight variations in the demands on a cut are also of interest. I'll quote Goldblatt's definition. 1961:

Um... that's a lot of questions! I'd say that, yes, this is a classical mathematical truth, even more classical than some of the proofs! It isn't strictly necessary to prove it more than once, but it's one of those popular problems that has attracted lots of proofs

2892:

You may be right about that, but in cases like this one, it is not enough to aim at a correct and sensible exposition; we should also aim at something that will not be corrupted all the time - if it can be done without compromising the integrity of the articles.

2279:

Simpler titles are more likely to be found either by search engines or by humans. I'd oppose it if I thought more material properly belongs under the shorter title than under this one. Why object to argumentatitiveness? All mathematical proofs are arguments.

3572:

Apparently A. H. Lightstone, a student and coauthor of Robinson, addressed decimals in NSA not long after the field was created. Lightstone's POV, contrary to this article's suggestion, is that decimals in NSA are (1) easy and (2) a useful educational device:

500:

Well, you're spot on about the problem of non-termination. I did realize that little hitch when I wrote the dialog. But, honestly, pretend you aren't a mathematician for a moment. You don't know a lick of calculus: you are the "boy" in the Socratic dialog

303:

At the outset, I assumed that two real numbers are comparable according to their sequences of digits. Then I assumed that between any two different numbers, there lies a third which is also different. These two assumptions must be incompatible in some way.

2914:

I'm not sure I understand how having 2 articles will prevent them (or one of them) from being corrupted. Are you saying that people are less likely to insert nonsense into a proof article? That doesn't seem to agree with the history of this article. --

2134:

Haven't contributed anything in a while, but I also support a move. Give it a day or so, and if there aren't a plurality of objections, then I say Melchoir does the move. Also, since '…' is a Unicode character, there will have to be a redirect from

2507:

And just to make sure that the move proposal isn't misunderstood, this article should not back down from that position. While we describe popular doubts over "0.999… = 1" per NPOV, we must not assert those doubts, since no reliable source ever does.

3929:

Rudin p.20 or Richman p.399. To be precise, Rudin and Richman would call this cut "1" and "1", respectively; both identify these with the traditional real number 1. Note that what Rudin calls a Dedekind cut, Richman calls a "nonprincipal Dedekind

3236:

That was the other guy, but I can understand why you think we're the same person. Checking "breaking subtraction" references. For what it's worth, as I reverted one move and two of your edits/reversions, so I'm out of this for a while, under

1148:

I'm intending a minor rewrite pass over the whole article to fix some of the mess that has accumulated, but I've been postponing it while I work on other things. I'll hang on to a copy of your variation and see what of it I can profitably use.

1831:

For this article, perhaps we'll change "orderings" to "metrics" and segregate the p-adics into a new third section of "Other number systems" dedicated to systems where decimal expansions don't make sense, but which are still somehow relevant?

1911:

The new archive's date isn't a typo; I went from the absolute earliest post to the absolute latest post. By a freak coincidence, someone replied to a two-month old discussion while I was moving the text, so I had to move that section back.

170:

Compare each expansion, number by number in sequence. When we encounter a number in the expansion of one which is different from the other, then we may say that the first real number is greater or less according as the number is greater or

1969:, well, it's currently undergoing several changes. I suspect that its broad structure isn't going to shift too much more, but one problem is that it doesn't have a lead section that provides an overview of the article. We'll write one soon. 3832:

Well, it's hard to prove anything with an illustration. I tried to indicate closed intervals by capping them with square brackets and reducing the transparency of the rectangles' edges; perhaps the brackets and edges should be thicker and

3520:

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I prefer your version personally, so that's why I didn't protect it myself (not supposed to protect pages I'm involved with). Should I cancel the request now though, as KSmrq hasn't reverted again?

3358:

I agree about game theory. That wasn't my writing anyway, although it's a good suggestion for a topic, as Hackenstrings are the only known example of a number system where something like 0.999… is less than 1 due to infinitesimals.

1119:

Here we're in the context of topos logic, and we need to keep our wits about us. But classical logic is a special case, so for present purposes we can interpret simply. Anyway, the thing to realize is that we can't really define

1722:, by including a new element ε defined to combine with other reals in the usual way, but such that its product with itself is zero. Every dual number then consists of a standard real component and an "infinitesimal" component, 1566:

Well, I think "Order proof" and "Limit proof" are looking good. Next, that geometric series is getting lonely, so I'll be adding a complementary method in "Real analysis" using subdivided intervals, due to Bartle and Sherbert.

3677:

Possibly "the non-terminating decimal 0.999… (where the 9s recur)", or "the infinitely repeating decimal 0.999… (where the 9s recur)". Or maybe the "(where the 9s recur)" part isn't necessary; it's obvious by the notation.

1609:] What's wrong with using this image to illustrate the point-- all but made by Mazur, especially if you read the book-- that a student who relies on a calculator is screwed when it comes to reasoning about 0.999...? 559:

Anyway, the offending passage of the dialog can easily be swept away. The student could answer something along the lines of: "They are equal if the one is neither less than nor greater than the other." Of course a

1747:ε lies between 0.9999...9 and 1 (so the limit is undefined). This order has the property that all sums of squares are positive, but of course it is not a field. We need merely leave the bit about displacement out. 342:"Between any two distinct real numbers there must be another number which is larger than one of them, but not as large as the other. There can be no numbers between 0.999... and 1, so they must have the same value." 1750:

Right, I'm on board with you mathematically. But does anyone actually work with the dual numbers in the order topology? It seems to me that physicists would be much happier taking limits in the plane instead.

3267:

were omitted from the definition of a cut. Keep the same definitions of order and addition. Show that the resulting ordered set has the least-upper-bound property, that addition satisfies axioms (A1) to (A4)

2814:), the vast majority of the community seems to agree with him. Wholesale reverts without even a scrap of discussion is not the way to go. In my book, the unilateral removal of sourced content even borders on 1193:

Every positive decimal expansion then easily determines a Dedekind cut: the set of rational numbers which are less than some stage of the expansion. So the real number 0.999... is the set of rational numbers

1995:

But now that I better understand the purpose of the article, the content is exactly what I would expect. Someone curious about established proofs of this truth should have this resource available to them.

348:(I expect both of these ideas have been suggested before and probably rejected because they are not rigorous enough. They are however good for trying to convince people who do not believe that 0.999...=1.) 2687:

it and working together to reach a compromise, instead of doing blanket reverts? Again, KSmrq, you stand alone in opposition. Please do not assume you have authority over the rest of the editors here.

1594:

Okay, nested intervals is up. I'm not real comfortable with having two long-yet-dense paragraphs that don't address 0.999..., so perhaps they should be exported to another article and allowed to expand.

1951:

this is a well-established, classical mathematical truth? If so, why is the extensive proving necessary? If it is an exploration, perhaps there is a better venue in which it ought to be published?

1491:

Another absurd twist. I will again revert to my decision to ignore you, and my plan to rewrite the article at some point in the future to clean out the mess you have almost single-handedly created. --

251:

It cannot be less than 9, since this would make it less than 0.999... by the method of comparison. It cannot be greater than 9, because each digit is an integer less than 10. So it must equal nine.

2655:

to understand the proofs originally presented, would also be able to derive them himself anyway). Any sensible article must discuss 0.999... within a broader context, and with a title to match. --

1221:

The equation "0.999... = 1" means that these two Dedekind cuts are the same set, each containing the same rational numbers. If the equation were untrue, there would have to be some rational number

3034:

me. The div headings are only for backwards compatibility with incoming section links. They invisibly demarcate areas that are currently too short to necessitate or merit subsections of thier own.

1403:

This section did not need to be rewritten just to satisfy your obstinacy, and the rewrite has several problems which I will not waste more time discussing if you have not changed your attitude. --

255:

So here is the number you have so far produced for me: 0.9????... where the digits represented by a "?" are yet to be determined. What is now the second digit to the right of the decimal place?

3581:

And that, kids, is why following references is better than doing original research. I was going to briefly expand on Hackenstrings next, but I think I'd better fix the overall readability first.

3306:

Yeah, and there's more that Richman has to say about the relationship between the two structures, especially in relation to negatives. I figured that material would stray too far from the topic.

2619: 3443:

working on two versions simultaneously. I guess the most neutral thing to do would be to protect the article, but I hope there's enough of a consensus here that we can agree to simply revert to

1743:

In fact, this is plainly a confusion; the dual numbers can be viewed as a plane, but they can also be ordered lexicographically, in which case they clearly have non-Archimedian elements and 1 -

2738:

Um... the whole second half of the article consists not of proofs that 0.999... = 1 but of Generalizations, Other number systems, Applications, and Skepticism. What do you think it's missing?

1458:. The number of footnotes is only two less. But now, every cite appears at the end of a sentence, and each paragraph has at least one and no more than two. I suggest that this is not absurd. 2901:

have an article with stuff that you say is without enough merit to have an article of its won. Having both articles, everyone (well, more of us, at least) can be reasonably happy, I think.--

2968:

I thought we were over this. I'm anxious to get back to work on the article, and I'm confident that I can fix whatever problems are brought to my attention. Can I get a consensus here that

2350:

I gather from that link that p-adic expansions are sometimes written to the right? It would be confusing to adopt that notation, but I guess we could make a note in the relevant section.

1786:

Why are the p-adic numbers offered as an example of an ordered algebra that is non-Archimedean? Isn't it true that the p-adics can't be ordered, and no p-adic has an infinitesimal norm?

1853:

I've tried moving them to a new subsection and motivating them through Gower's discussion of 0.000…1. I don't have a reference for ...999 = −1, but given the number of books on the

3349:...or at least you'd be welcome if we were doing this the civilized way. KSmrq, could you please either join the discussion or undo your revert? I find it personally offensive. 3413:

I agree with Meni Rosenfeld, the revert was wrong in my opinion and I think Melchoir's version is much better (even if it does have some issues which need to be discussed ). —

3166: 3139: 3613:

says the summary should be concise, and I interpret that as telling the reader what will be done, not how; that's for the body of the article. The less fluff, the better.

1446:

Still, the number of footnotes is easily reduced by combining some of them, particularly those that cite the same author within a given paragraph. I'll work on that now...

369:

A less conversational, though more rigorous, use of the same idea is embodied in the "order proof". Here's its last paragraph, looking for a rational between 0.999… and 1:

2599: 259:

Again, it must equal 9, since it cannot be less as that would make the number less than 0.999..., and it cannot be greater for there is no individual digit greater than 9.

1570:

Then "Other number systems" could use more explicit ties to 0.999..., including a subsection on systems where "0.999..." doesn't mean 1: hackenstrings and Richman's "Cut

1384:

The current article is worse than when I left it, as predicted. The number of footnotes is absurd, especially when we have separate articles on the cited topics, such as

2874:

Possible, but I think the proofs are neither hard nor interesting enough to merit their own article. With the proper setup, they're no more than trivial one-liners. --

3111:

Could you check the "Breaking subtraction" section again; I don't think that works correctly. But I don't have the reference available to check, unles it's online.

2018:

contains just the one proof.) So I also see what you mean about "proofs", but plurals are a tricky issue on Knowledge, and usually they're omitted from titles. See

1866:

This is what I get for not owning a history book... I could swear that the construction of the reals by Cauchy sequences was due to Cantor. Are you sure it isn't?

564:

is that ultimately one must face the possibility of non-termination in the case of equality. It also fails to highlight the student's "error" in stark terms.

3013:

and I have reverted your changes, pretty much for the same reasons. I don't see how you can say there is consensus that the reversions are inappropriate. —

2631: 134: 1443:. When there are multiple ways of formulating a concept, or an accuracy dispute between editors, it is especially important to seek external verification. 215:

If two different points on a line are given, then there is a third point between them which is not equal to either of the other two. Is this reasonable?

1696:

It seems pretty clear to me that you can make the dual numbers into an ordered ring, such that epsilon is a true infinitesimal. So what's the deal with:

1585:

In local news, I don't have a history book on hand. Can anyone fill in the details on the origin of the geometric series formula and its early proofs?

1355:, and I made sure of that before taking any action. If you extend me the same courtesy by exercising a little caution, we can be civilized about this. 768:

however, things are not so simple. Also, standard reals are rather forgiving, but in advanced treatments there are subtleties. For example, Goldblatt,

263:

Here is the number so far: 0.99???... Do you see that the argument you have just offered must apply to each digit, taken in turn, of this expansion?

3814:

intuitive to someone who does not accept the theorem. Is there anything, in and of the illustration, that forces it to be closed on the right side?

1322:

Like you did? You reverted once while I was typing extended material here, and a second time immediately after. In any event, as I said to you on my

3293:

under the appropriate definitions, and the cuts form an ordered groupoid, or something like that, and the reference seems to say that, as well. —

2581:. Melchoir has been warping the content from the intent of the article. The title of the article follows the convention of any proof article. It is 616:" doesn't return anything usable. Could someone make a link from the inverted titles to this article so that "=" may become commutative again? Thx. 2935:

I might support a variant of the idea: splitting off the sections detailing the mathematical development / proofs of 0.999… into a sub-article per

223:

Very well then. So according to your claim that 0.999... is different from 1, there must be a point between the two which is not equal to either.

3953: 669:

Now that you've finally convinced yourself that a direct Dedekind cut approach is not OR, it seems a good time to mention the three-volume series

3555: 3391:'s version is better, and any new problems it may have introduced should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (as has been initiated above by 2019: 1266:

This approach to assigning a real number to each decimal expansion is due to an expository paper titled "Is 0.999 ... = 1?" by Fred Richman in

2087:, including a fair/balanced section on Skepticism for NPOV, and a lead section along the lines of "0.999... is a common representation of the 2671:

All of the examples you gave, with the exception of the last, have corresponding articles about the general concept. For example, there is

324:

This is certainly good, as well as comprehensive and understandable to the layperson, but I think its a little too long for the article. --

247:

Yes, that's what I meant. What about the first digit to the right of the decimal point? Is it less than 9, greater than 9, or equal to 9?

1988:

point of the article is to argue against the notion of .999... equaling "approximately" 1. From what you've told me, this is not the case.

1284:, for which the proof is more obvious. Other modifications of the procedure can lead to structures other than the real numbers; see below. 179:

They are equal if this process never terminates. That is, if each digit in one sequence is equal to each corresponding digit in the other.

138: 3752:

I'm unable to understand the image, but that may be because I'm unfamiliar with the area. Perhaps an explanation of how the image works?

1730:ε, either of which may be zero. However, the infinitesimals are displaced off the real line, rather than ordered between standard reals. 191:

Good. Now I will demonstrate the flaw in your method of comparison. Are you aware that numbers may be represented as points on a line?

1439:

We cannot rely upon the four articles you mentioned for verification because, for various reasons, Knowledge does not consider itself a

3211:

For breaking subtraction, two links to the reference are in the References section, under "Richman". The free link is mostly the same.

1841:(By the way, I chose words poorly, but I secretly do know the difference between a field that's an ordered set, and an ordered field.) 2594: 2569:. There could be a redirect from "improper decimal expansion" which is a commonly used term for decimal expansions with recuring 9's. 271:

Then applying this argument, we can conclude that the number between 0.999... and 1 which is not equal to either of them is 0.999...

127: 1643:

Maybe the "trouble" language is sending the wrong message. How about, "A typical calculator cannot help one reason with 0.999...?"

158:

And given two different real numbers as infinite decimal expansions, can you tell whether one is greater or less than the other.

2725:

the article becomes more general on the number 0.999..., as opposed to its current state as merely a set of proofs, then I will

3667:

As for first sentence's "the recurring decimal 0.999… (where the 9s recur)": surely there's a better, shorter way to say that?

2359:

I've never seen it myself, but a reference was given (at least on the talk page, if not in the article — I haven't checked the

243:

If by first digit, you mean the digit to the left of the decimal point, then it must be a zero since it has to be less than 1.

3903: 3858: 3823: 3761: 3714: 3687: 3622: 2697: 2672: 2589: 2533: 2148: 1921: 477:

infinitesimals: they are non-Archimedean. (The article later mentions a few.) I doubt many nay-sayers would actually want to

2014:. It favors a specific proof under the spartan heading "Proof", hence the singular, describing some others as alternatives. 1828:

claims that "This field cannot be turned into an ordered field." I'm no expert in this area, but I'm inclined to believe it.

1326:

I'm winding down for the day. Further discussion or revert wars or whatever will just have to wait, at least on my end. --

1675:

True, yet even a TI-89 requires its operator to do much of the interpretation for it. Okay, I'll try the second version.

2604: 2220: 1393: 1175: 770: 2957:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2192:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

509:

of two decimal expansions? Invariably, the answer you come up with is going to be inconsistent with the "geometry" of

461:

positive rational. The version of the Archimedean property used here tells us that if a non-negative rational number

2614: 2609: 626:

Typing "Proof that 1 equals 0.999..." etc returns this article on the search though, but you need to use "proof". —

38: 291:

to either. So from this perspective 0.999... must be unequal to 0.999..., which is absurd. What is the problem?

3105: 3104:-style games. (I don't remember where we put the article, although it's probably in my watch-list). Found it: 2241:

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

1857:-adics and the obviousness of using negative one as an example, I'm sure there's a citation waiting to be found. 340:

You could explain it in a shorter (but less well laid out way) and then it would not be too long. You could say

3849:

Okay. I was just wondering if it was impossible to use half-open intervals, and it looks like it is. Thanks.

3404: 2920: 2879: 2660: 2398: 2324: 2064: 1432:

My stated goal is to make this a Featured Article. Other theories on my motivation and behavior are welcome at

97: 89: 84: 3168:

doesn't "equate" to 0, even if …999.999… can equate to 0. I've looked at that one, so, even if the reference

3609:

Yes, it should summarize, but going into detail about how each proof is accomplished distracts the reader.

2936: 2048: 72: 67: 59: 1700:"However, the infinitesimals are displaced off the real line, rather than ordered between standard reals."? 3610: 3596: 3298: 3246: 3178: 3018: 2436: 2368: 2342: 2305: 2268: 1796:

I've moved the tag to the sentence this seems to be objecting to. I'm not sure whether the p-adics are an

1145:

Anyway, I hope this is a sign that we are converging, and I do think the Richman paper is a nice addition.

397: 3810:

it, as the intervals could just as easily be [.2, 1), [.22, 1), and [.222, 1), which might actually seem

3093:

And I haven't installed popups. My reversions were both manual edits, although without much explanation.

2676: 183:

And so, using this method, would you then say that 0.999... is less than, greater than, or equal to 1?

617: 2470: 1397: 1268: 1260: 533: 442: 413: 2022:. Another benefit of "0.999…", now that you mention it, is that it's the least argumentative of all. 3400: 2916: 2875: 2656: 2394: 2320: 2060: 2052: 1997: 1952: 481:

such numbers, but to realize that, they would have to confront some of the awkward implications. --

231:

And this third point must be greater than 0.999... and less than 1, without being equal to either?

3899: 3854: 3819: 3757: 3710: 3683: 3618: 3144: 3117: 2781: 2693: 2529: 2428: 2281: 2144: 1917: 1433: 2776:

I didn't limit my explanation to one sentence, and I don't think we should. Nor need we have a

120: 116: 1760:...ah, it looks like the computer science people are interested in our ordering. One moment... 3530: 3491: 3422: 3392: 3294: 3242: 3174: 3014: 2497: 2456: 2432: 2364: 2338: 2301: 2264: 2252: 1665: 1629: 636: 613: 565: 541: 514: 309: 1381:

trying to talk with you before I walked away in frustration, leaving others to deal with you.

3806:

Yes, I see now. It's a great illustration of .222... approaching 1, but I don't see how it

2754: 2546: 1281: 1190:. In particular, the real number 1 is the set of all rational numbers that are less than 1. 1174:

The step from rationals to reals is a huge extension, and order is an essential part of any

349: 1816: 1389: 1323: 1351:

question of the old material several times: "Are there sources for this"? The answer was

3101: 2991: 2469:, as 0.999… does not equal one like the title "Proof that 0.999... equals 1" implies. 1259:, which is impossible. (There is no infinite rational number; the rational numbers are 608:

This is not a problem with the article but with the wiki search engine. Searching for "

325: 2319:

I don't see the problem. The notation "...999" is quite different from "0.999...". --

199:

And a pair of real numbers are equal exactly when the points they represent coincide?

3895: 3885: 3850: 3841: 3815: 3798: 3775: 3753: 3743: 3706: 3697: 3679: 3668: 3656: 3637: 3614: 3600: 3582: 3559: 3541: 3512: 3503: 3457: 3448: 3396: 3388: 3360: 3350: 3341: 3307: 3279: 3238: 3212: 3203: 3087: 3063: 3042: 2995: 2973: 2940: 2819: 2811: 2807: 2790: 2739: 2689: 2651: 2525: 2509: 2411: 2390: 2351: 2228: 2206: 2140: 2027: 1977: 1937: 1913: 1898: 1889: 1876: 1867: 1858: 1842: 1833: 1825: 1797: 1787: 1770: 1761: 1752: 1734: 1706: 1676: 1644: 1610: 1596: 1586: 1538: 1529: 1459: 1447: 1356: 1306: 1273: 660: 587: 417: 47: 17: 3599:

advises us that the lead section should summarize the entire article. Shouldn't it?

1800:, but they certainly have a natural order: lexicographic, first on the multiples of 3523: 3484: 3434: 3415: 3114:

In the p-adics, the double-decimals DOES NOT WORK. Adding one of the four 10-adic

2815: 2570: 2490: 2449: 2116: 2056: 1658: 1622: 1440: 1385: 1277: 1179: 629: 3482:

I've filed a request for protection (I can't do it myself because I'm involved). —

3041:

revert war but who are often willing to provide their opinions on the talk page.

609: 3705:*checks edit history* Yup, guess I did. Sorry about that; re-removing it now. 3097: 2750: 2730: 2558: 2093: 1719: 187:

Clearly, it must be less, for 0.999... begins with a 0, while 1 begins with a 1.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2112: 2084: 2044: 3876: 3786: 3056:...but of course it's infinitely better than being hit without explanation by 3010: 2894: 2839: 2803: 2635: 2168: 1652:

Definitely better. Include "typical" though, because calculators such as the

1492: 1404: 1327: 1292: 1150: 536:" is problematic, as I'm sure you (the mathematician) are aware. The article 482: 465:

smaller than any positive rational we can name, we have only one choice: zero.

287:

But by your argument, this is the only number between 0.999... and 1 which is

2861:, dealing - in an encyclopaedic way - with the misconceptions and folklore?-- 3907: 3888: 3862: 3844: 3827: 3801: 3778: 3765: 3746: 3718: 3700: 3691: 3671: 3659: 3640: 3626: 3603: 3585: 3562: 3554:

Given the lack of discussion after 60 hours, I have listed this article for

3544: 3535: 3515: 3506: 3496: 3460: 3451: 3437: 3427: 3408: 3363: 3353: 3344: 3310: 3301: 3282: 3249: 3215: 3206: 3181: 3066: 3045: 3021: 2976: 2943: 2924: 2905: 2883: 2865: 2826: 2823: 2793: 2784: 2758: 2742: 2733: 2701: 2664: 2638: 2573: 2561: 2549: 2537: 2512: 2502: 2483: 2461: 2439: 2418: 2415: 2402: 2371: 2354: 2345: 2328: 2308: 2284: 2271: 2231: 2210: 2171: 2119: 2096: 2068: 2030: 2000: 1980: 1955: 1940: 1925: 1901: 1892: 1879: 1870: 1861: 1845: 1836: 1819: 1790: 1773: 1764: 1755: 1737: 1709: 1679: 1670: 1647: 1634: 1613: 1599: 1589: 1541: 1532: 1495: 1462: 1450: 1407: 1359: 1330: 1309: 1295: 1280:

of the rational numbers yields the same results; in particular, one can use

1153: 663: 642: 620: 590: 568: 544: 517: 485: 352: 328: 312: 3733: 239:

So using your method of comparison, what is the first digit of this point?

1897:

There, now the reader's head is guaranteed to explode, and it's all true!

3290: 2902: 2862: 2718: 2256: 2224: 2202: 2136: 3949: 2488:... it does equal 1: that's what the article is supposed to be proving — 3254:

Okay. While you check out Richman, I'll paste in the quote from Rudin:

2987:

Wikifying the article. Then we can start discussing indivdual changes.

2088: 2059:

ring to it. I can understand exactly how it made him uncomfortable. --

130:, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary. 759:

Your proof incorrectly states the Archimedean property as the lack of

3880:

Illustration that in base 3, 1 = 1.000… = 0.222… via nested intervals

3790:

Illustration that in base 3, 1 = 1.000… = 0.222… via nested intervals

3737:

Illustration that in base 3, 1 = 1.000… = 0.222… via nested intervals

2360: 2334: 2293: 150:

Is it true that every real number has an infinite decimal expansion?

2857:?), with the standard mathematical arguments, and another one named 2227:– More accurate reflection of content; simpler; less argumentative. 1142:

the reals. And for that we want pairs satisfying the five sentences.

457:

Now take reciprocals: The immediate implication is that there is no

3456:(By the way, Chuayw2000 says he wouldn't be offended by a revert.) 3875: 3785: 3732: 1653: 111:

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

396:. Continuing in this fashion through each decimal place in turn, 2951:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2186:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal.

2139:. On previewing, looks like there already is, made by Mets501. 1060:, ε denotes the standard membership relation, and the variables 540:

want to include some indication of these philosophical issues.

505:. Try to answer the question naïvely: how do you decide on the 502: 2292:. It would also have to include a note on the left-to-right 10 1276:

mathematicians. Richman notes that taking Dedekind cuts in any

1186:

is the infinite set of all rational numbers that are less than

751:

Motivated by this observation, they define Dedekind cuts, with

3173:

left-to-right notation, as we've done so in that article.) —

675:

Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra

25: 1537:

Or, absent an answer to that, what needs rewriting, and why?

372:

If an upper bound less than 1 exists, it can be written as 1−

2620:

Proof that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes diverges

3696:

Yeah, I deleted it! So, you put it back by accident, then?

2297: 115:

This archive page covers approximately the dates between

3502:

Does this mean you want me to stop editing the article?

3271:(with a slightly different zero-element!) but that (A5) 3652: 3444: 3199: 3003: 2999: 2969: 2789:

Hey, this is just the standard move template speaking.

2627: 2015: 2011: 1455: 2994:'s changes to the introduction are harmful. I prefer 1976:

you expect from an encyclopedia article on the topic?

146:

How about a conceptual "proof" by the Socratic method?

3655:. The lead will still need something, though... hmm. 3147: 3120: 3062:. Surely no one will fault me for undoing this last? 2447:

per Melchoir and the fact that it's easier to find. —

2115:

in an earlier thread and I still support that title.

1138:

using a comparison operator, because we haven't yet

3511:...I guess I'll take that as a no. Back to work... 2806:, you should take a look at your actions. Whatever 3160: 3133: 763:rational numbers, when it actually is the lack of 3202:; presumably it happened while you were writing. 1214:is less than some other number of the form 1 − (⁄ 299:Look carefully at the assumptions you have made. 211:Then the points they represent must be different. 2051:. I've never thought of it before, but now that 2557:, as per my statement in the previous section. 1815:0 < 3 < 6 < 1 < 4 < 7 < 2... 1160:For convenience, I'll stick the variation here. 2600:Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem 1718:Standard reals can also be extended to become 1291:This will save digging through the history. -- 279:But 0.999... is equal to 0.999..., is it not? 3950:"Mathematics Magazine:Guidelines for Authors" 3079:First; they look like subtitles, they should 2683:make the article more verbose, but how about 2524:per Melchoir: more encyclopedic and shorter. 1656:can do it if entered as an infinite series. — 8: 2983:headings by subsections. You seem to be be 2055:mentions it, the current title does have an 1400:, and so on. I could say much more, but why? 135:Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1/Archive10 2717:a proof that 0.999... = 1. As long as the 3148: 3146: 3121: 3119: 3100:should probably be piped to specifically 1888:-adics now. This is going to kick ass... 703:… is the least upper bound of the set of 2972:is inappropriate and counterproductive? 2431:'s "vote". Could be 1, could be -1. — 1436:, where I will be eager to discuss them. 1080:⟩ there is one and only one real number 3954:The Mathematical Association of America 3913: 3387:the article here. That said, I believe 2846:, could we have both: An article named 2822:to your own version of this article? -- 1884:I've got three or four sources for the 771:Topoi, the categorial analysis of logic 673:, from MIT Press. In the first volume, 468:I'm not confident of my ability to put 344:Or an alternative way of looking at it 2020:Knowledge:Naming conventions (plurals) 1972:I'm interested in learning this: what 1577:After all that, I'm thinking GA -: --> 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2427:, per my comment in the thread under 2083:I also support moving the article to 1875:...and MacTutor comes through again. 207:What if the two numbers are unequal? 7: 2982:OK, first replace all < div : --> 659:that it precipitates any bloodshed. 139:Knowledge:How to archive a talk page 3289:OK, the "positive decimals" form a 2897:seems to be arguing that we should 2818:. Might it be that you have become 2713:. In its present state the article 1246:to be the rational number 1 / (1 − 789:is uniquely determined by the sets 513:(i.e., the Archimedean property). 3264:, suppose that the property (III) 24: 2810:'s motives (and I see no need to 2721:redirects here I see no proplem. 2595:Proofs of Fermat's little theorem 2043:I would support a move to either 1578:cook up some illustrations -: --> 3591:Lead section and popular culture 3445:03:19, 6 September 2006 Supadawg 2296:notation in which it's equal to 1946:Is This an Encyclopedia Article? 175:And when are two numbers equal? 29: 3261:With reference to the Appendix 721:has previously been defined as 420:), so it must be the case that 3006:) I reverted to is acceptable. 2944:17:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 2925:08:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 2906:08:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 2884:08:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 2866:08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 2759:06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 2211:15:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 884:if it satisfies the sentences 860:. In general an ordered pair ⟨ 1: 3908:22:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 3889:21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 3863:22:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 3845:21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 3828:20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 3802:02:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 3779:01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 3766:01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 3747:04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 3719:03:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3701:03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3692:02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3672:02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3660:01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3641:01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3627:01:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3604:23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3586:17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3563:17:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 3545:02:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 3536:02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 3516:21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3507:19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3497:18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3461:16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3452:16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3438:06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 3428:19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3409:19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3364:18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3354:18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3345:18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3311:20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3302:19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3283:19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3250:18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3216:18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3207:18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3182:18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3067:18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3046:18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3022:17:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2977:16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2827:08:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2794:18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2785:17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2743:16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 2734:14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 2702:20:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2673:Proof of Bertrand's postulate 2665:08:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2639:07:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2590:Proof of Bertrand's postulate 2574:07:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2562:07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2550:03:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2538:21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2513:21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2503:21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2484:21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2462:20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2440:19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2419:19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2403:19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2372:20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2363:article itself recently). — 2355:19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2346:19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2329:19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2309:17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2285:17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2272:15:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2232:14:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2197:The result of the debate was 2172:08:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2120:11:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 2097:10:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 2069:09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 2031:06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 2001:05:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1981:06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 1956:05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 1941:18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1926:20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1714:Meh, I'll remove it to here: 1238:) for every positive integer 591:20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 412:. But the rationals have the 3161:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {1}}1} 3134:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {1}}1} 2848:Proof that 0.999... equals 1 2769:Add any additional comments 2605:Proof that 0.999... equals 1 2221:Proof that 0.999... equals 1 1528:What are you talking about? 1394:construction of real numbers 712:." (For decimal expansions, 133:Please add new archivals to 3030:First: You could have just 3002:, although the version (of 2838:Following the example from 1902:18:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1893:08:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1880:21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1871:20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1862:19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1846:17:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1837:17:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1820:17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1808:, then on the multiples of 1804:, then on the multiples of 1791:16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1774:15:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1765:15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1756:15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1738:06:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1710:16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1680:05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1671:02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1648:21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 1635:21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 1614:20:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 1600:23:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 1590:18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 1542:22:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1533:20:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1496:20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1463:15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1451:14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1408:12:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1360:02:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1331:02:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1310:00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1305:before reverting anything. 1296:00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1182:approach, each real number 1154:00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 671:Fundamentals of Mathematics 664:22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 643:01:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 621:01:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 408:for every positive integer 376:for some positive rational 295:I must have made a mistake. 3989: 2842:'s list of articles named 2634:both content and title. -- 2615:Proof that e is irrational 2610:Proof that 22/7 exceeds pi 1692:Dual numbers: not ordered? 1068:range over the members of 604:But what about 1=0.999...? 3106:combinatorial game theory 3086:Third; neither does one ( 1965:As for what this article 1931:Expanding "Real analysis" 569:20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 545:19:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 532:Actually, the very term " 518:19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 486:19:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 353:16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 329:16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 313:19:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 3797:Perhaps this is better? 3595:Hey, hang on, Supadawg. 3000:08:48, September 5, 2006 2954:Please do not modify it. 2780:section for discussion. 2749:I support this change. 2189:Please do not modify it. 3198:By "popups" I refer to 2937:Knowledge:Summary style 2559:Confusing Manifestation 2094:Confusing Manifestation 1272:, which is targeted at 586:equivalent. *applaud* 436:({1}), and 0.9999… = 1. 166:How would you do this? 3881: 3840:defined it equals 1.) 3791: 3738: 3653:where you're going now 3611:Knowledge:Lead Section 3597:Knowledge:Lead section 3162: 3135: 2049:Proofs that 0.999… = 1 3879: 3789: 3736: 3163: 3136: 2026:lead as you see fit! 1824:Interesting! Anyway, 1347:I have already asked 42:of past discussions. 3145: 3118: 2677:Bertrand's postulate 1812:; so in the 3-adics, 1398:Archimedean property 1269:Mathematics Magazine 1263:.) So 0.999... = 1. 882:Dedekind real number 443:Archimedean property 414:Archimedean property 126:Post replies to the 1072:. For such a pair ⟨ 1052:denote the subsets 1004:)) "open upper cut" 969:)) "open lower cut" 404:must be less than ⁄ 3972:Richman pp.398-399 3894:Looks good to me. 3882: 3792: 3739: 3158: 3141:to of the decimal 3131: 3037:Second: Thank you! 2711:Conditional Oppose 2628:reasonable version 2547:Williamborg (Bill) 2263:argumentative. — 2016:An earlier version 1579:Peer Review -: --> 1434:User talk:Melchoir 1250:), one would have 1044:where the symbols 1039:) "close together" 3527: 3488: 3419: 3153: 3126: 3096:Further details; 2850:(or should it be 2632:wanting to change 2494: 2453: 2253:0.999... equals 1 2117:Fredrik Johansson 1662: 1626: 1282:decimal fractions 649:Back on the horse 633: 614:1 equals 0.999... 416:(they contain no 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3980: 3973: 3970: 3964: 3963: 3961: 3960: 3946: 3940: 3937: 3931: 3927: 3921: 3918: 3636:number systems? 3534: 3525: 3495: 3486: 3426: 3417: 3167: 3165: 3164: 3159: 3154: 3149: 3140: 3138: 3137: 3132: 3127: 3122: 2990:Second, I think 2956: 2812:assume bad faith 2501: 2492: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2460: 2451: 2191: 1669: 1660: 1633: 1624: 1582:peace and love. 1581:Main Page -: --> 876:) of subsets of 781:, a real number 641: 640: 631: 392:can be at most ⁄ 275:That is correct. 227:That is correct. 162:Yes, I think so. 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3988: 3987: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3971: 3967: 3958: 3956: 3948: 3947: 3943: 3938: 3934: 3928: 3924: 3919: 3915: 3731: 3593: 3570: 3522: 3483: 3414: 3143: 3142: 3116: 3115: 3083:like subtitles. 2966: 2961: 2952: 2835: 2767: 2579:Strongly oppose 2489: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2471: 2448: 2335:P-adic#Notation 2239: 2218: 2187: 1948: 1933: 1909: 1817:Septentrionalis 1784: 1782:And the p-adics 1732: 1694: 1657: 1621: 1607: 1564: 1562:Moving along... 1441:reliable source 1390:Cauchy sequence 1237: 1217: 1171: 1137: 1128: 1113: 1100: 826: 799: 747: 739: 729: 720: 711: 702: 696: 690: 683: 651: 628: 627: 606: 424:= 0. Therefore 407: 395: 387: 383: 148: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3986: 3984: 3975: 3974: 3965: 3941: 3932: 3922: 3920:Rudin pp.17-20 3912: 3911: 3910: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3834: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3772: 3730: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3630: 3629: 3592: 3589: 3579: 3578: 3569: 3568:Infinitesimals 3566: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3509: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3454: 3401:Meni Rosenfeld 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3356: 3347: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3209: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3157: 3152: 3130: 3125: 3112: 3109: 3094: 3091: 3084: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3038: 3035: 3025: 3024: 3007: 2998:'s version of 2992:User:The Anome 2988: 2965: 2962: 2960: 2959: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2917:Meni Rosenfeld 2909: 2908: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2876:Meni Rosenfeld 2869: 2868: 2834: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2766: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2680: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2657:Meni Rosenfeld 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2626:If you read a 2623: 2622: 2617: 2612: 2607: 2602: 2597: 2592: 2576: 2564: 2552: 2540: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2464: 2442: 2421: 2405: 2395:Meni Rosenfeld 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2321:Meni Rosenfeld 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2274: 2238: 2235: 2217: 2216:Requested move 2214: 2195: 2194: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2061:Meni Rosenfeld 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2023: 2004: 2003: 1993: 1989: 1984: 1983: 1970: 1963: 1947: 1944: 1932: 1929: 1908: 1905: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1839: 1829: 1813: 1783: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1767: 1758: 1716: 1702: 1701: 1693: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1641: 1606: 1603: 1563: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1535: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1453: 1444: 1437: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1401: 1382: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1299: 1298: 1289: 1288: 1235: 1215: 1210:< 0.99, or 1167: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1161: 1157: 1156: 1146: 1143: 1133: 1124: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1109: 1096: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1005: 970: 935: 912: 846: 845: 844: 822: 817: 795: 757: 749: 743: 731: 725: 716: 707: 700: 694: 688: 681: 650: 647: 646: 645: 605: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 466: 455: 447: 439: 438: 437: 418:infinitesimals 405: 393: 385: 381: 367: 358: 357: 356: 355: 334: 332: 331: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 297: 296: 285: 284: 277: 276: 269: 268: 261: 260: 253: 252: 245: 244: 237: 236: 229: 228: 221: 220: 213: 212: 205: 204: 197: 196: 189: 188: 181: 180: 173: 172: 164: 163: 156: 155: 147: 144: 143: 128:main talk page 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3985: 3969: 3966: 3955: 3951: 3945: 3942: 3939:Richman p.399 3936: 3933: 3926: 3923: 3917: 3914: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3887: 3878: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3800: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3788: 3780: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3745: 3735: 3729:Illustrations 3728: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3699: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3670: 3661: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3642: 3639: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3602: 3598: 3590: 3588: 3587: 3584: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3567: 3565: 3564: 3561: 3557: 3546: 3543: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3532: 3528: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3514: 3510: 3508: 3505: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3493: 3489: 3462: 3459: 3455: 3453: 3450: 3446: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3436: 3433:beneficial.-- 3431: 3430: 3429: 3424: 3420: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3365: 3362: 3357: 3355: 3352: 3348: 3346: 3343: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3312: 3309: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3281: 3278: 3273: 3270: 3266: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3217: 3214: 3210: 3208: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3171: 3155: 3150: 3128: 3123: 3113: 3110: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3092: 3089: 3088:User:Melchoir 3085: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3068: 3065: 3061: 3060: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3047: 3044: 3039: 3036: 3033: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3023: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2996:User:Melchoir 2993: 2989: 2986: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2975: 2971: 2963: 2958: 2955: 2949: 2945: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2907: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2891: 2890: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2867: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2833:Other options 2832: 2828: 2825: 2821: 2820:too enamoured 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2802: 2799: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2783: 2782:Michael Hardy 2779: 2775: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2732: 2729:such a move. 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2709: 2708: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2653: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2640: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2624: 2621: 2618: 2616: 2613: 2611: 2608: 2606: 2603: 2601: 2598: 2596: 2593: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2584: 2580: 2577: 2575: 2572: 2568: 2565: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2553: 2551: 2548: 2545:per Melchoir 2544: 2541: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2520: 2514: 2511: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2499: 2495: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2468: 2465: 2463: 2458: 2454: 2446: 2443: 2441: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2429:Michael Hardy 2426: 2422: 2420: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2406: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2385: 2384: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2353: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2282:Michael Hardy 2278: 2275: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2251:Might accept 2250: 2248: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2236: 2234: 2233: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2215: 2213: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2193: 2190: 2184: 2183: 2173: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2121: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2098: 2095: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2032: 2029: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1945: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1930: 1928: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1906: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1881: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1869: 1864: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1838: 1835: 1830: 1827: 1826:p-adic number 1823: 1822: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798:ordered field 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1789: 1781: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1757: 1754: 1749: 1748: 1746: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1736: 1731: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1715: 1712: 1711: 1708: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1691: 1681: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1667: 1663: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1631: 1627: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1612: 1604: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1583: 1575: 1573: 1568: 1561: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1464: 1461: 1457: 1454: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1409: 1406: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1332: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1311: 1308: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1294: 1290: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274:undergraduate 1271: 1270: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1255:10 for every 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1213: 1209: 1206:< 0.9, or 1205: 1201: 1197: 1191: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1170: 1162: 1159: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1136: 1132: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 911:) "non-empty" 910: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 885: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 842: 838: 834: 830: 825: 821: 818: 815: 811: 807: 803: 798: 794: 791: 790: 788: 784: 780: 776: 775: 773: 772: 766: 765:infinitesimal 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 728: 724: 719: 715: 710: 706: 699: 693: 687: 680: 676: 672: 668: 667: 666: 665: 662: 657: 648: 644: 638: 634: 625: 624: 623: 622: 619: 615: 611: 603: 592: 589: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 570: 567: 563: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 546: 543: 539: 535: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 519: 516: 512: 508: 504: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 487: 484: 480: 476: 471: 467: 464: 460: 456: 453: 448: 444: 440: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 411: 403: 399: 391: 388:less than 1, 379: 375: 371: 370: 368: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 354: 351: 347: 343: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 330: 327: 323: 322: 314: 311: 308: 307: 306: 305: 302: 301: 300: 294: 293: 292: 290: 282: 281: 280: 274: 273: 272: 266: 265: 264: 258: 257: 256: 250: 249: 248: 242: 241: 240: 234: 233: 232: 226: 225: 224: 218: 217: 216: 210: 209: 208: 202: 201: 200: 194: 193: 192: 186: 185: 184: 178: 177: 176: 169: 168: 167: 161: 160: 159: 153: 152: 151: 145: 142: 140: 136: 131: 129: 124: 122: 118: 113: 112: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 18:Talk:0.999... 3968: 3957:. Retrieved 3944: 3935: 3925: 3916: 3884:How's this? 3883: 3837: 3811: 3807: 3740: 3666: 3594: 3580: 3571: 3556:unprotection 3553: 3481: 3447:instead...? 3295:Arthur Rubin 3272: 3269: 3265: 3262: 3258: 3243:Arthur Rubin 3175:Arthur Rubin 3169: 3080: 3058: 3057: 3031: 3015:Arthur Rubin 3009:Third, both 2984: 2967: 2953: 2950: 2898: 2858: 2853: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2800: 2777: 2773: 2768: 2726: 2722: 2714: 2710: 2684: 2582: 2578: 2566: 2554: 2542: 2521: 2466: 2444: 2433:Arthur Rubin 2424: 2407: 2386: 2365:Arthur Rubin 2339:Arthur Rubin 2302:Arthur Rubin 2289: 2276: 2265:Arthur Rubin 2260: 2246: 2245: 2240: 2219: 2198: 2196: 2188: 2185: 2111:I suggested 2012:one year ago 1973: 1966: 1949: 1934: 1910: 1896: 1885: 1883: 1874: 1865: 1854: 1852: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1785: 1744: 1733: 1727: 1723: 1720:dual numbers 1717: 1713: 1703: 1695: 1608: 1593: 1584: 1576: 1571: 1569: 1565: 1386:Dedekind cut 1352: 1348: 1278:dense subset 1267: 1265: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1230: 1229:< 1, but 1226: 1222: 1220: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1180:Dedekind cut 1176:construction 1173: 1168: 1166: 1139: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1121: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934:) "disjoint" 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 881: 880:is called a 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 840: 836: 832: 828: 823: 819: 813: 809: 805: 801: 796: 792: 786: 782: 778: 769: 764: 760: 752: 744: 740: 736: 732: 726: 722: 717: 713: 708: 704: 697: 691: 685: 678: 674: 670: 655: 652: 607: 566:Silly rabbit 561: 542:Silly rabbit 537: 515:Silly rabbit 510: 506: 478: 474: 469: 462: 458: 451: 450:there is no 433: 429: 425: 421: 409: 401: 389: 384:, which is ⁄ 380:. To bound ⁄ 377: 373: 350:Raoul Harris 345: 341: 333: 310:Silly rabbit 298: 288: 286: 278: 270: 262: 254: 246: 238: 230: 222: 214: 206: 198: 190: 182: 174: 165: 157: 149: 132: 125: 114: 110: 109: 78: 43: 37: 3774:Any ideas? 3098:Game theory 2970:this revert 1605:Calc Thingy 1261:Archimedean 1242:. Defining 1202:< 0, or 1169:Order proof 848:called the 618:82.135.2.13 562:consequence 400:shows that 283:Yes, it is. 36:This is an 3959:2006-08-23 3651:Oh, I see 3011:User:KSmrq 2765:Discussion 2423:Change to 1907:Archive 08 1225:such that 1198:such that 610:1=0.999... 475:do include 446:technique. 267:Yes, I do. 121:2006-09-09 117:2006-06-29 98:Archive 15 90:Archive 11 85:Archive 10 2964:Reverting 2816:vandalism 1580:FA -: --> 1324:talk page 1178:. In the 854:lower cut 473:but that 441:Here the 398:induction 326:He Who Is 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 3904:contribs 3896:Supadawg 3886:Melchoir 3859:contribs 3851:Supadawg 3842:Melchoir 3824:contribs 3816:Supadawg 3799:Melchoir 3776:Melchoir 3762:contribs 3754:Supadawg 3744:Melchoir 3715:contribs 3707:Supadawg 3698:Melchoir 3688:contribs 3680:Supadawg 3669:Melchoir 3657:Melchoir 3638:Melchoir 3623:contribs 3615:Supadawg 3601:Melchoir 3583:Melchoir 3560:Melchoir 3542:Melchoir 3513:Melchoir 3504:Melchoir 3458:Melchoir 3449:Melchoir 3397:Melchoir 3389:Melchoir 3361:Melchoir 3351:Melchoir 3342:Melchoir 3340:effect. 3308:Melchoir 3291:semiring 3280:Melchoir 3213:Melchoir 3204:Melchoir 3064:Melchoir 3043:Melchoir 2974:Melchoir 2941:Melchoir 2859:0.999... 2844:Proof... 2808:Melchoir 2791:Melchoir 2778:separate 2751:Peter O. 2740:Melchoir 2719:0.999... 2698:contribs 2690:Supadawg 2652:Melchoir 2534:contribs 2526:Supadawg 2510:Melchoir 2476:Jarlaxle 2412:Melchoir 2391:Melchoir 2352:Melchoir 2257:0.999... 2229:Melchoir 2225:0.999... 2149:contribs 2141:Supadawg 2137:0.999... 2053:Chadbald 2028:Melchoir 1998:Chadbald 1978:Melchoir 1953:Chadbald 1938:Melchoir 1922:contribs 1914:Supadawg 1899:Melchoir 1890:Melchoir 1877:Melchoir 1868:Melchoir 1859:Melchoir 1843:Melchoir 1834:Melchoir 1788:Melchoir 1771:Melchoir 1762:Melchoir 1753:Melchoir 1735:Melchoir 1707:Melchoir 1677:Melchoir 1645:Melchoir 1611:Melchoir 1597:Melchoir 1587:Melchoir 1539:Melchoir 1530:Melchoir 1460:Melchoir 1448:Melchoir 1357:Melchoir 1307:Melchoir 761:infinite 661:Melchoir 593:Piepants 588:Piepants 507:equality 459:smallest 106:Untitled 3833:darker? 3435:Trystan 3274:fails." 2903:Niels Ø 2863:Niels Ø 2801:Comment 2774:Comment 2727:Support 2685:editing 2567:Support 2555:Support 2543:Support 2522:Support 2479:Artemis 2467:Support 2445:Support 2425:Support 2408:Support 2387:Support 2290:Comment 2277:Support 2089:decimal 1962:anyway. 1140:defined 756:theirs. 454:number. 452:largest 289:unequal 137:. (See 39:archive 3808:proves 3399:). -- 3393:Arthur 3299:(talk) 3247:(talk) 3239:WP:3RR 3179:(talk) 3102:Conway 3059:popups 3019:(talk) 2731:Maelin 2437:(talk) 2369:(talk) 2361:P-adic 2343:(talk) 2306:(talk) 2269:(talk) 2255:, but 2247:Oppose 2237:Survey 2113:0.999… 2085:0.999… 2045:0.999… 1234:1 − (⁄ 612:" or " 534:decide 3930:cut". 3241:. — 3032:asked 3004:08:27 2895:KSmrq 2852:Proof 2840:KSmrq 2804:KSmrq 2636:KSmrq 2393:. -- 2337:. — 2300:. — 2294:-adic 2169:KSmrq 2057:ORish 1974:would 1654:TI-89 1493:KSmrq 1456:There 1405:KSmrq 1328:KSmrq 1293:KSmrq 1254:: --> 1233:: --> 1151:KSmrq 1088:with 1019:: --> 965:: --> 872:)×𝒫( 868:⟩∈𝒫( 850:upper 839:: --> 812:< 483:KSmrq 171:less. 16:< 3900:talk 3855:talk 3820:talk 3812:more 3758:talk 3711:talk 3684:talk 3619:talk 3531:talk 3524:Mets 3492:talk 3485:Mets 3423:talk 3416:Mets 3405:talk 3395:and 3200:this 3170:does 2921:talk 2899:only 2880:talk 2824:Huon 2755:Talk 2694:talk 2675:and 2661:talk 2530:talk 2498:talk 2491:Mets 2457:talk 2450:Mets 2416:Huon 2414:. -- 2410:per 2399:talk 2389:per 2333:See 2325:talk 2261:more 2207:talk 2199:move 2145:talk 2065:talk 1918:talk 1666:talk 1659:Mets 1630:talk 1623:Mets 1129:and 1101:and 1064:and 1056:and 1048:and 1000:< 852:and 753:most 748:10.) 637:talk 630:Mets 503:Meno 470:that 432:) = 235:Yes. 219:Yes. 203:Yes. 195:Yes. 154:Yes. 119:and 3526:501 3487:501 3418:501 3297:| 3259:20. 3245:| 3177:| 3081:act 3017:| 2583:not 2571:pom 2493:501 2452:501 2435:| 2367:| 2341:| 2304:| 2267:| 2259:is 2203:JPD 2047:or 1661:501 1625:501 1218:). 856:of 827:= { 800:= { 779:Set 777:In 735:=0… 730:= ∑ 632:501 538:may 479:use 141:.) 3952:. 3906:) 3902:• 3861:) 3857:• 3838:is 3826:) 3822:• 3764:) 3760:• 3717:) 3713:• 3690:) 3686:• 3625:) 3621:• 3558:. 3407:) 2985:un 2923:) 2882:) 2757:) 2723:IF 2715:is 2700:) 2696:• 2663:) 2536:) 2532:• 2401:) 2327:) 2298:-1 2223:→ 2209:) 2201:. 2147:• 2067:) 1967:is 1924:) 1920:• 1396:, 1392:, 1388:, 1353:no 1349:my 1236:10 1216:10 1149:-- 1105:= 1092:= 984:≡∃ 949:≡∃ 918:~( 843:}, 835:: 808:: 463:is 406:10 394:10 386:10 382:10 123:. 94:→ 64:← 3962:. 3898:( 3853:( 3818:( 3756:( 3709:( 3682:( 3617:( 3533:) 3529:( 3521:— 3494:) 3490:( 3425:) 3421:( 3403:( 3257:" 3156:1 3151:1 3129:1 3124:1 3108:. 2919:( 2878:( 2854:s 2753:( 2692:( 2659:( 2528:( 2500:) 2496:( 2472:⇒ 2459:) 2455:( 2397:( 2323:( 2249:. 2205:( 2151:) 2143:( 2063:( 1916:( 1886:p 1855:p 1810:p 1806:p 1802:1 1745:k 1728:b 1726:+ 1724:a 1668:) 1664:( 1632:) 1628:( 1620:— 1572:D 1257:n 1252:q 1248:r 1244:q 1240:n 1231:r 1227:r 1223:r 1212:r 1208:r 1204:r 1200:r 1196:r 1188:x 1184:x 1135:r 1131:L 1126:r 1122:U 1114:. 1111:r 1107:L 1103:L 1098:r 1094:U 1090:U 1086:R 1084:∈ 1082:r 1078:L 1076:, 1074:U 1070:Q 1066:w 1062:v 1058:L 1054:U 1050:L 1046:U 1037:L 1035:ε 1033:w 1031:∨ 1029:U 1027:ε 1025:v 1023:⊂ 1021:w 1017:v 1015:( 1013:w 1011:∀ 1009:v 1007:∀ 1002:v 998:w 996:∧ 994:U 992:ε 990:w 988:( 986:w 982:U 980:ε 978:v 976:( 974:v 972:∀ 967:v 963:w 961:∧ 959:L 957:ε 955:w 953:( 951:w 947:L 945:ε 943:v 941:( 939:v 937:∀ 932:L 930:ε 928:v 926:∧ 924:U 922:ε 920:v 916:v 914:∀ 909:L 907:ε 905:w 903:∧ 901:U 899:ε 897:v 895:( 893:w 891:∃ 889:v 887:∃ 878:Q 874:Q 870:Q 866:L 864:, 862:U 858:r 841:c 837:r 833:Q 831:∈ 829:c 824:r 820:L 816:} 814:c 810:r 806:Q 804:∈ 802:c 797:r 793:U 787:R 785:∈ 783:r 745:i 741:a 737:n 733:i 727:n 723:r 718:n 714:r 709:n 705:r 701:3 698:a 695:2 692:a 689:1 686:a 684:. 682:0 679:a 656:U 639:) 635:( 511:R 434:U 430:S 428:( 426:U 422:x 410:n 402:x 390:x 378:x 374:x 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index