Yet more maths. All you didn't want to know about real numbers.

[eddie_aus]

In comments to my previous post, we got onto 1 = 0.999... recurring. This is in fact true, and the answer is in my reply comment to the previous comments

Comments

[miss__scarlet]

*whoosh*
that was the sound of an aeroplane flying over my head...
*ducks*
;-)

[eddie_aus]

Eh, it's not too bad. Just take the definition of dense-ness as given and work from there.
That's how you do higher maths. It's quite interesting. You get to a point where you have found a nice property, and it'll be useful for later work, and you don't want to keep saying 'and if this is true, and this is true, and this is true, then we know this about it'. So you come up with a new term (and some of the new ones are starting to sound very non-english) and call objects by the new terms if they satisfy the conditions. Then it's easier to understand what's going on, provided you have a maths dictionary handy.

On an interesting note, one of the terms in a subject was that a function can be 'faithful'. And it's a pretty good use of the word faithful as well :D

[eledhwen_20]

You need to see this. I figure you'll either love it or be slightly annoyed by it if it's not quite right... :)

integers and rational numbers

[biggyfishy]

I thought for a minute that you were wrong about the number of rational numbers equalling those of the integers, but then I realised that proof I read in Hofstadter was talking about reals. Yeah? There's more reals than rationals? Um.

Will

[drucilla_death]

Er I think I should leave the maths to someone else...( even though I did get an A once in Maths because I aced the alegbra test somehow without even studying one teeny bit... o.0 ) Heh enough on babbling, hello, I'm Candice, we met a bit at Ange's blue themed party last night, so thought I'd add you so we can chat a bit better ( since I'm deaf and the party last night was loudish anyway) so... Hi!