You need to explain that.

In general, this is completely wrong, just fyi. The basic Dedekind Cut/Cauchy Sequence definition of a real number does not, in any way, rely on a series construction.

This post was edited by darkfire on Apr 15 2010 10:58pm

Some times.

/thread

whos the man? im the man.

p.s. in case you tldr nolimits link, the professor proves it by using geometric series

This post was edited by Kamikizzle on Apr 15 2010 11:23pm

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=summation+from+i%3D1+to+infinity+9%2F10^i

There, this is done. end this shit.

already said that bitch

Much like the Riemannian projection of the real line, it never ends. We just keep going in a straight line back to where we started.

so is the geometric series proof enough or is there some higher math semantics that must be defined first etc

There is always more higher math semantics that needs to be defined (until you hit the axioms anyway) but it really doesn't matter. Most proofs in this thread are accurate to one degree or another. To be honest, if anyone is willing to accept that 1/3 = .333..., the question should have been settled by multiplying by 3 (that is a legitimate proof if the first line is true). If anyone is willing to admit a base 10 expansion of real numbers, then the geometric series proof works. If anyone is willing to admit the existence of the natural numbers, then the Cauchy/Dedekind construction I talked about works (that requires a lot of intermediate lemmas though).

hi im 12 and what is this

ok what is 1/3 in decimal? will that decimal ever equal 1? answer me this dipshit