My Math Forum Limit of a Natural Number Series

 Elementary Math Fractions, Percentages, Word Problems, Equations, Inequations, Factorization, Expansion

February 7th, 2019, 02:11 PM   #11
Global Moderator

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,942
Thanks: 2210

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo There are n! natural number corresponding to n place digits
So there is 1 natural number corresponding to 1 place digit. I'm not sure what you mean by that or how it would relate, if at all, to your previous posts here. Can you specify the natural numbers you are referring to for n = 0, 1, 2 and 3?

February 7th, 2019, 02:22 PM   #12
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 528
Thanks: 43

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo Don't agonize over it if you didn't get the point right away. It's not that tight a post.
You're the only one agonizing over this stuff.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo There are n! natural number corresponding to n place digits, FOR ALL n.
Correction: There are $10^n$ whole numbers that may be represented using decimal notation across $n$ digits. E.g., there are $10^2 = 100$ numbers, 0 through 99, that may be represented using $n=2$ digits.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo There seems to be this notion floating around that if a sequence of digits is very large it can't be a natural number.
By definition, a sequence of digits isn't a natural number. The sum of $n$ terms of a sequence equates to a whole number when $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and the terms are all whole numbers.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo There is no ONE natural number at "infinity."
As you've been told time and time again, infinity is not a natural number. The ordinal $\omega$ is a limit ordinal, which is to say that it is a set containing all of the finite ordinals. There is no ordinal number $k$ such that $k < \omega$ and $k + 1 = \omega$. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number

Is there a point to all of this? I think you may have officially lost it. It's as though you are regressing, which I didn't think was possible.

I find cranks fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

"The second book of the mathematician and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1992 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a checklist, the Crackpot index, intended to diagnose cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[6]

According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

1) Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2) Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3) Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4) Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions."

Last edited by AplanisTophet; February 7th, 2019 at 02:28 PM.

February 7th, 2019, 02:38 PM   #13
Global Moderator

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,942
Thanks: 2210

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AplanisTophet "The second book of the mathematician and popular author Martin Gardner . . . "
That needs correction. He wasn't a mathematician.

February 7th, 2019, 05:49 PM   #14
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 551

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo Don't agonize over it if you didn't get the point right away. It's not that tight a post.
You don't say/

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo There seems to be this notion floating around that if a sequence of digits is very large it can't be a natural number.
Not everyone is as sloppy about formulating ideas as you may think.

What people are saying is that that no infinite sequence of decimal digits, except those that start with an infinite number of zeros, can be a "natural number" as usually defined.

It is not that people are being vague. It is that you do not bother to read carefully.

Last edited by skipjack; February 7th, 2019 at 07:50 PM.

 February 7th, 2019, 06:55 PM #15 Global Moderator     Joined: Oct 2008 From: London, Ontario, Canada - The Forest City Posts: 7,958 Thanks: 1146 Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond Enough said. Thanks from JeffM1

 Tags limit, natural, number, series

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post panky Algebra 4 May 20th, 2016 03:53 AM Shen Elementary Math 2 June 5th, 2014 07:50 AM kingcoke Calculus 7 February 2nd, 2012 03:35 AM bilano99 Algebra 4 October 28th, 2011 07:09 AM jblaine271 Abstract Algebra 3 December 7th, 2007 04:09 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top