• Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It is my opinion that repeating decimals cannot

    Your opinion is incorrect as a question of definition.

    I have never disagreed with the math

    You had in the previous paragraph.

    Is it possible to have a coversation about math without either fully agreeing or calling the other stupid?

    Yes, however the problem is that you are speaking on matters that you are clearly ignorant. This isn’t a question of different axioms where we can show clearly how two models are incompatible but resolve that both are correct in their own contexts; this is a case where you are entirely, irredeemably wrong, and are simply refusing to correct yourself. I am an algebraist understanding how two systems differ and compare is my specialty. We know that infinite decimals are capable of representing real numbers because we do so all the time. There. You’re wrong and I’ve shown it via proof by demonstration. QED.

    They are just symbols we use to represent abstract concepts; the same way I can inscribe a “1” to represent 3-2={ {} } I can inscribe “.9~” to do the same. The fact that our convention is occasionally confusing is irrelevant to the question; we could have a system whereby each number gets its own unique glyph when it’s used and it’d still be a valid way to communicate the ideas. The level of weirdness you can do and still have a valid notational convention goes so far beyond the meager oddities you’ve been hung up on here. Don’t believe me? Look up lambda calculus.