Re: [jboske] RE: [lojban] djedi li integer

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 pycyn@aol.com wrote:


> And, of course there is an identity relation for numbers finer than equality,
> namely ontic identity, which requirtes that they be the same thing, not
> merely have the same value (under condition...).


I don't buy it. A real or integer has only one property, and that is its
magnitude.




> xorxes:
> <<
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >forgive my ignorance, but how come 21.9999999999999 is equal to
> >22.0?
>
> One way of seeing it is this:
> x = 21.9999...
> 10x = 219.9999...
> 10x - x = 198.0000...
> 9x = 198
> x = 198/9
> x = 22
> >>
> Nice, if contradictory looking. Certainly more intelligible (and so
> convincing) than the usual one through the calculus.


It reminds me of a "proof" I saw in high school that delivered 0 = 1.

We can do Jorge's stunt more easily:
x = 0.9bar
1 - x = 0.00 (...infinitude of zeros...) 001
= 0.0 {by handwaving}



-- 
Henry McCullers, an affable Plano, TX-area anti-Semite, praised the
Jewish people Monday for doing "a bang-up job" running the media.
"This has been such a great year for movies, and the new crop of fall
TV shows looks to be one of the best in years," McCullers said.
"And the cable news channels are doing a terrific job, too. Admittedly,
they're not reporting on the Jewish stranglehold on world finance,
but, hey, that's understandable."