Wonderer wrote:Sidhe wrote:Wonderer wrote:and it doesn't mean it is.

I am more than satisfied with my understanding of math.

maybe you're getting me wrong and think I'm saying that .333 cannot or should not be used as being equal to 1/3. Pragmatically .333 bar does equal 1/3, it's just an error in logic to look at the pattern and say it equals one. looking at the pattern it's obvious beyond argument that the number approaches 1/3 but never reaches one third. this means that with infinite 3's it will simply be infinitely close to 1/3, making it pragmatically equal to 1/3.

people simply need to make that extra bit of effort to think the problem out

You mean mathematicians need to accept that there axioms are wrong and yours are right because you say so. You can try convincing them but I don't think you'll get anywhere, set theory and thus all maths depends on them. Without them you might as well bin it and start with something you like that doesn't apply to any number system we know. Your choice, I sincerely hope that it works for you, and have no problem with you saying that. Just don't study maths at degree level you'll be lost.

It takes no effort for me to say I cannot conceive of infinity.

look I'm not trying to dictate "axioms". i'm just pointing out an inconsequential logical inconsistency.

what I'm saying is that an infinite amount of digits after a decimal place does not allow us to "round up" the number without losing some theoretical precision, even if it is infinitesimally small.

i don't know how i can say this in terms i havn't already. Imagine chopping down a tree. let's say with each chop you take down half of what is left on the tree.

how many chops will it take to get rid of the tree? infinite?

with such a chopping strategy there will always be a remainder, regardless of infinity or not.

the idea is to make the remainder so small it doesn't matter.

I know what you are trying to do it is not illogical at all to say .999...=1. No offence but try there. If they don't bin the thread through having seen it turn up to often to care to prove set/number theory to you. You might get somewhere. I'm out though. I genuinely without sarcasm think you should ask this, because it'll give you a greater understanding of what maths is, and what infinities mean. So don't take my ennui as being churlish.

i appreciate that but i won't be needing any other opinions. i have been told the same thing about 50 000 times.

you see my head as being screwy, i see all you guys as being unable to see the logical error.

In that case maths is not for you. No offence or slight intended.

You have to realise that maths is a self contained number system, that is not reflective absolutely of reality. There are no numbers in reality only numbers of things. Thus you can define them to preserve the application when it comes to number of things without any need to say it is illogical. It might be axiomatic but it works and without it maths is trashed and useless.