News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Math Myth by lisper on Saturday September 03, 2016 @04:37PM (#12421071)
> So you're saying a countable infinity can be occupied, so that there is no room for one more.

No. I'm saying that a countable infinity doesn't have room for one more at the end. There is no end.

You can obviously stick a 1 in the middle, but then you have a number strictly less than 0.999...

Re:The Math Myth by Twisol on Saturday September 03, 2016 @10:34PM (#12422381)
You might be able to do something funny with a series whose terms are indexed by ordinals. The last `1` would then be indexed by `omega` (the first transfinite ordinal). I can't claim that the ordinary rules of arithmetic would make much sense, but it's certainly an idea that you can attempt to formalize.
Re:The Math Myth by lisper on Sunday September 04, 2016 @03:51AM (#12423296)
Re:The Math Myth by nilkn on Sunday September 04, 2016 @11:57PM (#12428004)
Of course you can. Consider the sequence of rational numbers in (0,1). Now consider the sequence of rational numbers in (0,1]. The latter has had an extra term appended.

(This is of course flawed, but I think it illustrates that the question isn't completely trivial. It requires us to carefully distinguish between the notion of an ordered set and a sequence and even then we'll have to deal with the fact that the rationals can be made into a sequence, but not with the same ordering.)

Re:The Math Myth by lisper on Monday September 05, 2016 @12:16AM (#12428073)
No. There is no such thing as the sequence of rational numbers in an interval. The rationals have a total order, and they can be enumerated, but the total order of rationals does not define an enumeration of the rationals and hence the rationals are not a sequence. If you want to dispute this, tell me: what is the next rational after 1/2?
Re:The Math Myth by nilkn on Monday September 05, 2016 @12:37AM (#12428133)
I took some liberties with the word "the", but I'm pretty sure that you know that it's easy to construct an ordered sequence of all rational numbers using any of a number of standard diagonalization arguments. I'll skip the details you already know.

Eventually, yes, you're going to be able to poke a hole in my argument. It is definitely flawed. I don't know how long it'd take us to get there, but it doesn't really matter. But we're already at the point where this cannot be considered "basic", and that is my true point here.

Attempting to demonstrate that 0.999... = 1 while meticulously avoiding any rigorous definition of what 0.999... means is not very easy and will require you to fend off all sorts of potential jabs from various directions. It's much easier to just talk about infinite sums and be done with it.

Re:The Math Myth by lisper on Monday September 05, 2016 @06:42AM (#12429367)
> It's much easier to just talk about infinite sums and be done with it.

Indeed. But it's a lot less fun :-)