Quote: "0.(3) is not 1/3 precisely"
Give a bloody proof instead of making a statement that isn't true.
Already said. The decimal representation 0.(3) IS the limit of the sequence {0.3,0.33,0.333,0.3333,...}. The limit of that sequence IS 1/3.
Since decimal representations AREN'T the real numbers, they're just representations of real numbers, talking about a decimal after an infinite sum... doesn't really make sense. If you define it for me I can help!
What does a computer's representation of 1/3 have to do with any of this?
It helps if you go into an argument open-minded enough to consider the possibility you're wrong, instead of figuring out how to justify whatever belief you have. On this topic, honestly, I'm not really entertaining the idea I could be wrong, but that's only because I've finished two books on proofs and half a book on real analysis, and because I have internet (also, actual) mathematicians (vihart, singingbanana), as well as a stackoverflow thread with mathematicians writing the answers (
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/11/does-99999-1 with the wonderful quote which applies here, "Symbols don't mean anything in particular until you've defined what you mean by them."), as well as many other articles from professional mathematicians, on my side.
There's also the concession that the idea isn't total crap
provided that you define everything
very carefully (
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/281492/about-0-999-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis) which you have not.
"I <3 u 2 bbz" - Dark Frager
