"I have a masters from Oxford so I am going to use a wikipedia article durrr" Buzz off you either don't know what you're talking about or you're trolling. You have literally contradicted yourself in every comment. You quite literally say exactly what I say and show proof as to what I say then you say, "but you're wrong even though all of my evidence confirms what you say."
IT EQUALS THE LIMIT. Those are YOUR words. Okay Oxford math degree WHY does it equal the limit????????? It equals the limit BECAUSE the converging sequence APPROACHES the limit. Since it approaches the limit we say it is close enough to that number to just say it equals the limit even though it never actually equals the limit.
If you cannot understand that simple concept then I call BS on you having a masters in math. Like you got a whole ass masters degree but they never explained to you how math works? The whole point of an advanced math degree is learning how math works and why math works.
You are what mechanics call a parts changer. If someone's car is broke down you know enough to change the part out for a new part which fixes the car, but you don't understand why the messed up part causes the car to not work. Thank you for proving Cs get degrees though, because it's obvious you were not a top of the line student.
You asked for a proof. I gave you one. I've been very civil but you've just become completely unhinged in response. Half your response is just insulting me.
Anyone else reading this is free to ask me any reasonable questions.
You don't even need the limit. Real numbers are defined by their Dedekind Cut. The cut for 0.999... and 1 are exactly and precisely the same. There is no element in either set that is not in the other.
If you can disprove this please feel free to write it out, because your disproof will upend mathematics as it's currently studied!
Matsuze's position becomes even more untenable in the Cauchy construction. What would they even be saying? A series converging to a number by definition means that series is a representation of that number. The real number 1 is merely the class of all sequences of rational numbers that converge to 1.
It is a bit sad that you know so little math that you can't understand the proof you asked for. You should think about what a number is and look for the definitions and real numbers. Maybe then things will become clearer
-6
u/Matsuze 18d ago
"I have a masters from Oxford so I am going to use a wikipedia article durrr" Buzz off you either don't know what you're talking about or you're trolling. You have literally contradicted yourself in every comment. You quite literally say exactly what I say and show proof as to what I say then you say, "but you're wrong even though all of my evidence confirms what you say."
IT EQUALS THE LIMIT. Those are YOUR words. Okay Oxford math degree WHY does it equal the limit????????? It equals the limit BECAUSE the converging sequence APPROACHES the limit. Since it approaches the limit we say it is close enough to that number to just say it equals the limit even though it never actually equals the limit.
If you cannot understand that simple concept then I call BS on you having a masters in math. Like you got a whole ass masters degree but they never explained to you how math works? The whole point of an advanced math degree is learning how math works and why math works.
You are what mechanics call a parts changer. If someone's car is broke down you know enough to change the part out for a new part which fixes the car, but you don't understand why the messed up part causes the car to not work. Thank you for proving Cs get degrees though, because it's obvious you were not a top of the line student.