October 3rd, 2016, 01:45 AM  #21  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 1,882 Thanks: 609 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  Quote:
$\displaystyle 0.5000... = 0.5$ $\displaystyle 0.4999... = 0.4\dot{9} = 0.5$ So the two values you quoted are equal to each other. I think you're trying to say something like this: Define two functions: $\displaystyle f(n) = \frac{2}{5} + \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{9}{10^i} $ $\displaystyle g(n) = 0.5$ As $\displaystyle n \rightarrow \infty$, $\displaystyle g(n)  f(n) \rightarrow 0$. That's fine. However, if you set n to be infinity, what happens? $\displaystyle g(\infty)  f(\infty) = 0$ But then you tell me that n cannot be equal to infinity. Why not?  
October 3rd, 2016, 08:46 AM  #22  
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 908 Thanks: 72  Quote:
2) infinity is not a number. You conveniently ignored my following post: $\displaystyle \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}$1/n =0 but 1/n never equals zero. Suppose you listed the nplace decimals in [0,1) in order: .0000000 .0000001 .0000002 .............. As n approaches $\displaystyle \infty$, they approach a countably infinite list of the real numbers. If you let n= $\displaystyle \infty$, they would all be zero by your thinking, because .00000.....1 = 0 when n = $\displaystyle \infty$ .00000.....2 = 0 when n = $\displaystyle \infty$ ............. $\displaystyle \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}$.000....1 = 0, but .000....1 never equals 0. Last edited by skipjack; October 4th, 2016 at 03:04 PM.  
October 3rd, 2016, 09:12 AM  #23 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 16,583 Thanks: 1199  
October 3rd, 2016, 09:38 AM  #24  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 6,440 Thanks: 2114 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  This is correct. $\frac25+\sum \limits_{n=2}^\infty \frac9{10^n}=0.5$ does not depend on evaluating the sum at $n=\infty$, but it does represent the value of the infinite decimal. Quote:
The number of digits cannot "approach infinity". It is either finite or it is not. The length of the decimal is not convergent so it doesn't converge to $\infty$. Indeed the phrase "approaches infinity" in the context of limits has a precisely defined meaning that does not use the concept of "infinity". Your attempt to use the phrase as in some way related to decimals of infinite length is an inaccurate blurring of precise definitions. Last edited by skipjack; October 4th, 2016 at 03:05 PM.  
October 4th, 2016, 03:29 AM  #25  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 1,882 Thanks: 609 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just quoting the result. What assumptions am I making that prevent me from putting infinity as a limit of a summand? If you mean this... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As CRGreathouse argued in previous threads, if you want to mess around with your own number system, that's fine, but if you do that you are no longer talking about the reals or the decimal number system. You can even create your own system that includes weird things like 0.000...1 or $\displaystyle 0.\dot{0}5$ or whatever, but those numbers are certainly not decimal numbers. Last edited by skipjack; October 4th, 2016 at 03:08 PM.  
October 4th, 2016, 04:56 AM  #26 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 1,882 Thanks: 609 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  
October 4th, 2016, 07:40 AM  #27  
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 16,583 Thanks: 1199  Quote:
They wouldn't all be zero. The last in the list for any value of n is the decimal containing n nines, which approaches 1 as n tends to $\infty$.  
October 4th, 2016, 08:06 AM  #28 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 908 Thanks: 72 
The nplace decimals in [0,1) are unique, rational and countably finite. As n $\displaystyle \rightarrow \infty$ they remain unique, and become real and countably infinite. 
October 4th, 2016, 08:22 AM  #29 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 908 Thanks: 72 
.00....01 and .00....02 are not the same no matter how many decimal places you take. .49999.... and .50000.. are not the same no matter how many decimal places you take. 
October 4th, 2016, 08:28 AM  #30 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 1,882 Thanks: 609 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  

Tags 
decimal, representation, unique 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Matrix representation  Robert Lownds  Linear Algebra  2  April 15th, 2013 01:13 AM 
representation of permutation  bvh  Advanced Statistics  1  February 28th, 2013 08:47 AM 
Basis Representation  guynamedluis  Number Theory  2  January 29th, 2012 11:20 PM 
Conjecture: Decimal Representation of root  John Creighton  Number Theory  2  March 14th, 2011 10:03 AM 
Decimal To Fraction To Decimal  demipaul  Linear Algebra  2  November 19th, 2009 06:42 AM 