/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15288278
>0.999... = 1
No. Just typing (...) as an appeal to some actually infinite process is not the same as an infinite process actually having happened. An actually infinite process CAN'T ever happen. And so you can only ever get closer to one, but getting 'closer' to one in a continuous sense is meaningless, since no matter how close you get, you will always still be infinitely far away from 1. This (...) is un-specific. This is related to the concept stated in pic.

>>15248915
In other words, with regard to this
>>15249048
there's no 'for all objects greater than zero in an infinitely divisible and continuous this or that, there exist some corresponding this or that'. This is an idealic situation. You can't demonstrate that in the physical world (the physical word is digital). This is an ontological or metaphysical claim (false one, the world is discrete and digital). Which is fine, I like metaphysics, but it's not empirical. These math MODELS have utility, continuous models that is, with regard to applying them to the physical world to make predictions to non-arbitrary precision, but that is different from them representing a description of the physical world where for every element of the model there is an element corresponding in the physical world in some kind of one for one basis. This doesn't even make sense in a quantized world physical world.

>>15111209
>HOW CAN IT BE 1?
It can't be. As stated in pic related.