TheProwler wrote:
"people that use flawed logic or poor notation to conclude that .999... = 1 pose no major problems to mathematics as a whole."
No, flawed logic. Nothing wrong with that.
I don't think I was very clear there. What I was trying to say was that misapplication of rules is far less of a problem to me than to claim that the rules are completely invalid. Anyway, let's set that aside.
TheProwler wrote:This just goes to show how we don't really grasp the idea of infinity. We can talk about it all day, but we understand a beginning and an end. We understand finite.
I don't fully disagree that as finite beings we can't really grasp the infinite. However, we do have some sense of it. For example, suppose for a moment that our universe is finite (physicists generally agree that it is but are still trying to define the geometry of it as I recall). If it is finite, then it has an end. Maybe it's just me, but I want to know what is beyond the end of the universe! I'm perfectly happy with a finite earth and a finite space around earth, but somehow I'm not content with some limitation or end to everything beyond which there is nothing. I'm not claiming this rebellion against a strict limitation to the finite equates with an understanding of the infinite, but only a sense thereof.
But let me take this a different direction. Even if no one can fully understand the infinite doesn't mean that no one can make full use of the infinite in various settings. Try this: What are imaginary numbers? Can you really wrap your mind around them and understand them? Where are they? What are they? I don't think I could give a really good definition of them aside from defining them as 2-dimensional numbers of sorts or explaining where they derive from. And that even though I use complex numbers on a daily basis in my field and am very comfortable with them.
TheProwler wrote:You used a lot of limits and the concept of infinity in your discussion.
Anyways, limits are approached. They are never reached. Right?
When we say "the limit of A is equal to B" we are not saying "A is equal to B".
Actually, if A is a continuous and bounded function in the neighborhood of c, then "
the limit of A at c is equal to B" actually does mean "
the value of A at c is equal to B".