3 ms·
Whether you multiply by 10 or 2, the same "counter" argument from the article stands. Only now you don't have a trailing zero after infinite nines, you have a t
by derbaum 1y ago
Whether you multiply by 10 or 2, the same "counter" argument from the article stands. Only now you don't have a trailing zero after infinite nines, you have a trailing 8.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoI don't understand how you can even have a trailing zero after an infinite number of nines. Surely any place that someone would want to put the zero can be refuted by correctly stating that a nine goes there (it's an infinite number of them, after all) and there is literally no "last" place.
- hinkley 1y agoI’ve seen videos of actual mathematicians complaining to each other about how the general public thinks like GP. There is no last digit. Every time you reach the horizon there’s another horizon.
- anthk 1y agoTechnically you don't have an '8', you keep doing a carried sum forever, think about it. The last eight will be set to 9 forever and appended a new one to it. Thus, you are getting a periodical 1.9_ in practice.
- hinkley 1y agoThere is no eight. This is something I’ve heard actual mathematicians complain about to other actual mathematicians: the non math public misunderstands infinite series as “imagine a number so big you can’t fathom it and add 1 more number to it. That’s not how things work. Going as far as you can imagine and a little farther is an infinitesimal of the real infinite.