Undefined:
You've posted a huge long post, yet
still failed to answer the question I asked you. I remind you:
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1. True or false?
This is a mathematical statement. Either you think it is true, or you think it's false. There's no half-way house. So, which is it?
Let's look at some of what you wrote. I really don't want to wade through all of it.
A bit strange, isn’t, that you demand an answer from someone whom you just ‘sent off the field’’ for three days, so preventing him from responding?
I have not demanded anything of you. Here you are, making post after post in this thread, yet you seemingly don't have an actual point of view on the simple question above. All I see is waffle.
Also, didn't anybody ever tell you that using ALL CAPITALS on the internet is considered to be SHOUTING? Do you want to look like some kind of deranged nut? Because that's the kind of person who mostly uses random capitals on the internet.
And you wanting it both ways by demanding an answer from me that you ‘want’ over what my answer MUST LOGICALLY BE consistent with all the context/discussion/explanations so far in this thread that points to YOUR stance being UNreal and hence UNANSWERABLE in any way that is real and meaningful when the very BASIS of your stance is the whole POINT of this thread/discussion, seems a little disingenuous.
I'm having trouble unpacking what you even mean by all that. All those CAPITALS for emphasis, and you still haven't communicated.
How often have self-appointed ‘experts’ of one sort or another told a ‘crank’ or whomever something to the effect: “It may not be the answer you wanted, but it’s the only answer you are going to get; and just because you don’t understand or don’t like it, tough!”
Very often indeed, I'm sure. What's wrong with that?
So, James, am I going to be banned for NOT ANSWERING HOW YOU WANTED OR LIKED ME TOO?
Not by me. Not at this stage.
I wouldn't have thought that answering a simple question like the one above, about your own personal beliefs, would be as hard as it apparently is for you. Maybe you should just leave this thread alone.
Never mind, though, it’s just the sort of ‘strangeness’ that creeps into any situation where people get ‘all steamed up’ about things because they are so convinced they are right because their circuitously based and argued/’proofed’ philosophy-based, unreal-Axioms-derived, ‘math system’ tells them they are right, despite all the self-evident reality-based observations to the contrary to which these same mathematicians are deaf while they repeat obviously (as demonstrated by reality based logics and arguments already) flawed and incomplete and self-referential ‘statements and claims’ which haven’t YET been ‘proofed’ via any INDEPENDENT REALITY BASED arguments/axioms.
Does this mean that you're leaning towards saying the statement above is false, then? I really can't tell.
But you keep deriding and evading and threatening banning etc OTHERS who keep telling you what you don’t want to hear, while your own arguments are demonstrably and repetitively trivial and beside the point being made to YOU.
Forget my arguments. How do you respond to post #915, above? That has put the nail in the coffin in this thread, as far as I'm concerned. What's your analysis of that?
James, why should I or anyone else even bother playing the ‘unreal/uncomplete math game’ back at you when I have already given you and arfa, Trippy et al the whys and wherefores your math game is based in unreality and philosophy instead of any reality/sane logics/arguments/outputs?
Nobody has asked you about reality and unreality. For my part, I simply want to know whether you agree with the truth of the above mathematical statement. It's a formal mathematical statement in a formal mathematical system. So, within that system, is it true or false?
And, while we're at it, is it true that, in the same system, 0.999... = 1?
One you've answered those questions,
then maybe we can start getting all philosophical and start pondering whether this formal mathematics actually works in "real" world, whatever that is.
James, it would help you be less ‘emotionally attached’ to patently incomplete orthodoxy...
Ok. So help me.
Explain to me what is patently incomplete about my orthodoxy. Because it isn't patent to me at the present time.
Look, James, arfa, I already explained to Trippy that all these 1/3 etc TRIVIAL manipulations, constructions/deconstructions of symbolic terms are NOT ‘proof’ of anything at all EXCEPT the notation/convention used and NOTHING ELSE.
Do you include post #915 in that?
They are NOT any actual process/operation completed, they are ASPIRATIONAL STATEMENTS at best, and misleading assumptions at worst (since in many cases the implied operation is never actually started let alone completed to IDENTIFY EXACTLY what those 1/3 etc expressions actually evaluate to EXACTLY.
You seem to think that a number is a process. Or do I have you wrong?
Also, I'm puzzled as to what you think is "real" about a number such as 7 or 1 or pi. I'd say all numbers are abstractions. We can talk about the number 3, but it's an abstraction until we start talking about 3 sheep or 3 dollars or 3 tons of salt.
So, James, everyone, it is STILL the case that no repetition and demands from ‘current unreal maths’ can be ‘answered’ PROPERLY except by INDEPENDENT perspectives/answers which do NOT depend on the unreal circuitous ‘current maths answers/demands’ TRYING TO SHAPE AND CONSTRAIN the discussion/answers to “what is acceptable to current maths” which has been already well shown NOT to be comnplete and hence IN NO POSITION to LIKE or DEMAND anything when it is the INDEPENDENT answers that matter in the final analysis/review going on here and elsewhere IN REALITY TERMS starting premises rather than dead-end unreality philosohical starting terms.
It now sounds like you're saying you have no idea whether 0.999... = 1 or not. Is that correct?
Consider what the THINKING mathematicians themselves have already realized. Apart from the TRIVIALITY of proffered ‘formal proofs’ so far from conventional maths contruct, there is the inescapable fact as Goedel and others have recognized for some time now: One cannot use arguments from WITHIN an abstract philosophical/maths construct to ‘prove’ anything about that same construct; because such proffered ‘proofs’ are NOT INDEPENDENT, but inescapably, circuitously self-referential.
I think you've misunderstood Goedel. Of course you can use arguments within a formal system to prove statements made within that system. If you couldn't all mathematics would be useless. Goedel's theorems are about the completeness and consistency of formal systems.
Get it now? The ONLY INDEPENDENT system is the REALITY; and that is the ONLY FINAL ARBITER construct from within which REAL PROOFS ARE POSSIBLE that are not circuitous and self-referential, BECAUSE there is no abstraction involved, since the objective physical reality is ALL THERE IS and IS intrinsically, logically, physically and demonstrably COMPLETE and CONSISTENT irrespective of any partial/incomplete abstract ‘takes’ from it by unreal philosophical/maths modeling by us.
So, tell me how REALITY would work out whether 0.999... = 1 or not.
Can’t you ‘get’ that Motor Daddy has ALREADY pointed out to you that the TRIVIAL CONSTRUCTION and equally TRIVIAL DEconstruction exercise is VERBOTTEN from first principles? Mere construction of a COMPOSITE UNITARY from OTHER INDIVISIBLE UNITARY identities is a PHILOSOPHICAL HEIRARCHICAL CONCEPTUAL exercise and NOT a mathematical/logical PROCEDURE that proves anything like what youn WANT it desperately to ‘prove’?
I don't think Motor Daddy has pointed out anything of the kind to me.
Maybe you can explain without all the CAPITALS and waffle.
It all STARTS from that, and any further operations can be trivial or meaningful depending on the exercise and the unitary involved. For example YOU have DECONTRUCTED “1” DAY into 24 hours, thus EFFECTIVELY converting an ODD unitary into a number of EVEN UNITARIES SUB-UNITS. So naturally that TRIVIAL exercise will suit that trivial purpose, but it does not ‘prove’ anything, nor can you base any conclusions at all on it, because it IS trivial and SELF-SELECTIVE in the construction which will ‘output’ whatever YOU built into it ARBITRARILY and TRIVIALLY.
I thought it nicely demonstrated the point that 1 thing can be divided equally into 3 parts, which was an issue Motor Daddy disputed at the time. Now, he appears to be running away from that silly claim. But perhaps you'd like to take up his baton?
It is timely to point out that the phrase: You can’t get THERE from here”, and “You can’t get BACK HERE from THERE”, are quite seriously apt to illustrate where all your and others current mathematical ‘trips’ are NON-STARTER and/or NON-SEQUITURS from any ‘LIMITS based false starts ’ you imagine when you just write down 0.999..., 1/3 etc as if they identify anything real at all.
Nobody's talking "real" yet. This thread is about the mathematical truth or falsity of 0.999... = 1, isn't it?
Merely invoking philosophical INFINITY concept does NOT actually ‘get you there’ from 1/3, or 1/9 etc , because you never can, hence the 0.333..., 0.111... etc.
Nor can you ever ‘commutate’ backwards from infinity of 1/2+1/4+... back to 1 unitary, since you NEVER WERE AT INFINITY to ‘start back from’.
This sounds (a) like you think that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... doesn't equal 1, and (b) like you think a number is a process.
Do you want to address either of these points in more depth?