Yes is a legitimate answer. If you accept Cantor's philosophy of mathematics, then the answer is yes.

No is a legitimate answer. If you accept Kronecker's philosophy of mathematics, then the answer is no.

Both Kronecker and Cantor were far better mathematicians than anyone here on AT. If you wish to make an informed decision on this question, please do research on the two differing philosophies of mathematics that quarreled with each other in the late 19th century. One of them is more commonly accepted than the other, but both are indeed valid philosophies. Modern day mathematicians respect both points of view, even if they choose to adhere to one of these views. Kronecker and Cantor are both highly respected.


Whether you answer yes or no, you are giving a correct answer. And those who chose the opposite answer from you are equally correct. And neither of you has anywhere near the mathematical understanding to comprehend why both of you have given valid answers. You likely won't even know which mathematician's philosophy is required to justify your answer.

But just for future reference - you're both right, and you're both idiots.

Best Post of the day.

Maybe.

Rockman is wrong no matter how much sense he spews.

http://www.youtube.com/...ture=youtube_gdata_player

Disregard the last 2 words in the video

No, im right and youre wrong, period end of story.

Transfinite set theory = boss.

more like kronecker was a whiny fluff like most of AT.

I'm a better mathematician than Kronecker to the power of Cantor!

I thus reject both these as blasphemous, and you're all idiots!




My proof?
Let's, assume the universe is infinite, If you have no Sifos, it's still infinite
Sifos*0 = X/0
now:
X/0/0 = super infinity = Sifos >>> 1^1 >= 0.999...^0.999...
Mathematically, there exists infinity, so the universe must be infinite since it incorporates maths. Proof done.

math is broke.

.99999....=1

When measured, is either a wave, or a particle.

Discuss!

Modern math generally follows Cantor when it comes to stochastic calculus (financial and engineering modelling) and some other things.. that doesn't make Kronecker any less correct and his ideas (including the circle cross product thingy) were very valuable contributions to mathematics.
Your point gets to the whole crux of the issue which is that mathematics is a philosophy and not a science and it's entirely based on man made rules. It just happens to be a very useful tool for enabling us to solve all kinds of problems as well as to help us do Science. But it's no more a "science" than my hammer.

Yep, Cantor is the one I was referring to as "more commonly accepted."

Is 1 - .999................ = ZERO?

ONLY THE INFINITE MONKEYS CAN DIVIDE BY ZERO!

Hmm, reminds me of this one Seinfeld episode...

This

rockman I think you have a somewhat narrow view of math. Most of us don't give a crap what the logicians say (or what any outside of our very specialized subfield say).

If you are an engineer, .999=1
If you are a chemist, .999 =/= 1 =/= 1.0 =/= 1.00
Also if you are a chemist, .999+1 = 2 =/= 1.999 =/= 2.000

Wall of text.

try and short a crack head .999 of a gram.

How many posts does it take Rockman to try to sound smarter than the rest of AT when no one gives a crap? 0.999...

When something costs $0.99 I still need to break my $1.00...So, I conclude that it might as well just be a freakin dollar.