User talk:PenyKarma

January 2016

Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Redacting own comments

Hi, regarding the revert by user Deacon Vorbis of your edits at Talk:0.999.../Arguments, please see the talk page guidelines at wp:REDACT. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: please stop this. You are close to talk page disruption, which can lead to a block. - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have now followed the guidelines but someone is still deleting my change. My change is a very simple clarification, no change in meaning at all. How do I stop my change from being undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenyKarma (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

By doing it this way, and talking about it with that person. - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are you here?

I've closed the section Talk:0.999.../Arguments with a more neutral wording and without the collapse. However, I do agree that this has long since stopped being productive. Multiple editors, myself included, have very patiently gone through your posts and tried to explain where you're confused, but you have consistently refused to listen and continue to make the same sort of hand-wavy arguments despite being told exactly why they don't work. At this point, your behavior is bordering on trolling. You should take a moment and read WP:NOTHERE, which I believe applies to you. If you continue to be disruptive, I'll seek a block, and I have little doubt that one would be handed out. On the other hand, if you really do want to contribute to Wikipedia, then by all means, please do so, but try to realize why we're all here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Regarding who is not listening and who is doing the hand-waving is a matter of opinion. You keep stating the modern definitions and wording that is currently accepted as real analysis. I am not ignoring these arguments I am trying to explain to you why they appear (to me) to contain contradictions. Simply telling me to go away and read a few real analysis text books is to simply ignore my position. I am not an idiot, I can participate in intelligent discourse. And so if you could explain to me in a clear and concise way why my arguments are wrong then I would thank you kindly and admit my mistake. But you are not doing this, you are simply stating that the concept of real numbers does not lead to contradiction and trying to censor my arguments. PenyKarma (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Modern mathematics have moved on from any alternative views you might have and there is no WP:FREESPEECH for such arguments here. Also, what is your purpose of being on Wikipedia? Thus far I have yet to see any actual useful article contributions from here (WP:NOTHERE). "why they appear (to me) to contain contradictions" (emphasis mine) – I have a right to my opinion is not an argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello PenyKarma. Our math articles should be edited by people who are willing to defer to what is written in the literature. Our intention is to accept as given the "modern definitions and wording that is currently accepted as real analysis". It looks like you are re-fighting the 19th century. We don't have to be able to answer your objections. Perhaps there is an online forum where you can pursue this. (Articles have to be based on sources anyway, not on editor's personal opinions as to which theorems are true). If the argument continues, blocks are possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I was here to discuss possible changes to the Wikipedia article about 0.999... because I believe it does not adequately reflect the objections to the equivalence. A large proportion of the population do not believe that 0.999... equals 1 (around 50% according to some polls) and of course we are all wrong if you take a real analysis text book as your gospel, but I disagree that this means our voices should not be heard on Wikipedia. The argument over 0.999... is to real analysis as the argument over the evolution of the eye is to creationism.

You said: "Our math articles should be edited by people who are willing to defer to what is written in the literature. Our intention is to accept as given the "modern definitions and wording that is currently accepted as real analysis"."

This is akin to a religious person telling an atheist that Wikipedia articles on religion should only be written by people willing to defer to the religious scriptures and that the intention is to accept wording that is used and accepted in modern religious works. You are acting like a religious dictator.

I pointed out that there might be issues with the first formal proof that appears on the main article page. I think we can agree that it shows that there is no base 10 decimal that can be placed between it and 1 (assuming that the so-called infinite decimal 0.999... can have a static value). But for this to prove that 0.999... equals 1 it requires the 'completeness' of the base 10 decimal system. In other words we have to assume that any rational value, or sum of rationals values, can be expressed as a base 10 decimal. The issue here is that we can express 1/3 in base 3, base 6, base 9, base 12, or any base that is divisible by 3, but arguably we cannot express 1/3 in other bases.

Now instead of using base 10 decimals we could consider series of rationals. Then we can apply the exact same logic as in the first formal proof that appears in the main article to 'prove' that 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... is ALWAYS less than 95/100 + 45/1000 + 45/10000 + 45/100000 + … (this series is arguably half way between 0.999... and 1).

Yes we could construct a limit argument to show that these two series both have a limit of 1. But if we then declare that this means they are equal it would appear to contradict the logic of the formal proof (since the logic of the proof can be used to show inequality). The formal proof does nothing more than show that we cannot construct a base 10 decimal between 0.999... and 1 but when applied to series of rationals instead of base 10 decimals, the proof no longer works.

[Note that geometric series can also be used to provide an answer to the question of what you get when you subtract 0.999... from 1. You get the series 1/10 – 9/100 – 9/1000 – 9/10000 … ]

The proof relies on the assumption that any series of rationals can be expressed as a base 10 decimal but this is what we need to prove, we should not assume it. If the logic of the proof can be used to show that two series with the same limit cannot be equal, then how can it be reliable logic?

This is a case of where the desired result is known and an argument is made up to support the desired result. There are many instances like this where infinity is concerned. If we start with a zero length and we add many zero lengths to it, we always end up with a zero extent. But our desired result is that we want non-zero lengths to consist of infinitely many points, each of zero length. To many people this would appear to form an obvious contradiction but mathematicians believe that this does not form a contradiction. They often dismiss the contradictions of infinity by describing them as paradoxes. The use of different words is not a valid reason (in my opinion) to ignore contradictions.

For another example of this consider an infinite decimal like 0.999... or the inverse of the square root of 2. Now consider moving along the number line from 0 to 2. You will pass the point 0, then you will pass the point 0.9, then you will pass the point 0.99, then 0.999, then 0.9999 and so on. Note that every point corresponding to a decimal place in the infinite decimal is further down the number line and so you must pass these points in turn, one after another. It follows that if you stop moving then there must be a 'last point' in the infinite decimal that you have moved past. It then follows that when you reach the point '2' you must have passed a point corresponding to the 'last digit' in the infinite decimal. This forms a contradiction because an infinite decimal is not supposed to have a 'last digit'.

It doesn't matter how many times you use words like 'least upper bound', 'half-open interval' and 'supremum' you will not be providing any explanation. You are just describing the problem using different words and then claiming that it is not a problem. Presumably the base 10 decimals 0.999... and the inverse of the square root of 2 are not works in progress where the trailing parts are still being added; they are static values that exist as fixed points on the real number line. If so then how can you go past them without going past a 'last point' corresponding to one of the decimal places? Do the points somehow stop following each other in order? Do they somehow bunch up into an infinite blur where you can't distinguish between them? If so, where exactly does this blurry bunching begin? Questions like this cause mathematicians to get very angry (as occurred on the discussion page where I have been censored in that my last comment was removed and if I try to comment further then I'll be blocked).

Their last resort is often abuse (if censorship is not possible). They might claim that anyone who thinks such an argument highlights a contradiction doesn't understand mathematics. They might say you have to be working at a much higher level of mathematical complexity in order to understand these things. But to us mere mortals this sounds like a futile attempt to hide in complexity and pretend that clever sounding words and symbols somehow gets around the problem.

It is obvious that, should the number line be a valid concept (unlikely), nobody can clearly describe how we can move past a point on the number line corresponding to an infinite decimal without passing a 'last point' in its decimal representation. It is a blatant problem with the concept of infinite decimals but if you have a blind faith in the validity of infinite decimals then you will simply refuse to accept that the concept might be flawed.

So in short I was here to try to give a voice to many billions of people who, like me, think that the statement 0.999... = 1 is problematic. We need our views to be respected and documented properly rather than misrepresented and ridiculed.

I'll go away now because I'm obviously wasting my time here. You are incapable of questioning the validity of your real analysis gospel and so you will continue to ridicule and censor the voice of the real analysis atheists. Finally, I'd like to thank @Algr: for all the support. PenyKarma (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. You know I used to do Wikipedia edits on other subjects, but this issue has really discouraged me, and made me question "legitimate" science. It's not so much right or wrong, but people seeming to have no idea what I said before refuting me with misguided calls to authority. @Deacon Vorbis: Just because you think you are agreeing with the experts doesn't mean you really know what they are saying. Algr (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"The proof relies on the assumption that any series of rationals can be expressed as a base 10 decimal but this is what we need to prove, we should not assume it." Which is quite simple for anyone with mathematical understanding. $f:\mathbb {Z} \times \{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9\}^{\mathbb {N} }\to \mathbb {R}$ is surjective and that is easily proven with the cauchy construction where $(n,g)\to (n+\sum _{j=1}^{i}g(j)\cdot 10^{-j})_{i}$, which is claerly cauchy and it is anything but difficult to show that given a cauchy sequence, we can find such an element in the aforementioned set, ergo it is surjective and it can represent all real numbers. Helps knowing mathematics. TheZelos (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Here

my oh my, you're here to spread misinformation too? TheZelos (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)