0.99999~ = 1 ?

You appear to be doing in the very post to which I am replying, because you are still questioning the identity of 0.9999... and 1.Those two are different names for the same number. They are identical, because they both refer to the same identity (the same number). The names (the ascii representations) are different, but the numbers referred to are identical (meaning that they are the same number).

These are exactly the evidences proving you've got it exactly backwards and are confusing the symbol for the object. firstly, in math it is only the meaning that is of importance. secondly, U and OO are not identical because they have other, non-matching values (sun: soon), while .999~ and 1 do not have other non-matching values. And yet you do treat them such over and over again.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Are the following two figures, A and B, identical?A) B) A simple one-word answer will suffice.Jon

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

Yup. The NAME 0.9999| and 1.0 are DIFFERENT, though the NUMBER they REPRESENT is the SAME. Are the following two figures, A and B, identical?A) B) The miscommunication appears to be here. When I write 0.9999| and 1, and refer to them, I am not using them as representations of some number and thus indirectly speaking of the number; but when I say 0.9999| and 1 are different, I am saying so in reference to them as strings, as purely a cluster of shape and symbol. In fact, were 0.9999| and 1 themselves identical, this thread would not exist, because no one would have ever questioned whether they stood for the same thing within the same Symbology.1 is identical to 1
0.9999| is identical to 0.9999|
3/3 is identical to 3/3
1 is not identical to 0.9999|
0.9999| is not identical to 3/3
3/3 is not identical to 1Identicalness has nothing to do with meaning or interpretation or representation. It is a purely physical and objective, unless, of course, you find the following two figures, A and B, to be something other than 'not identical':A) B) Jon

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

Mathematics doesn't work if you talk about it that way. For then we cannot say things such as x = y, because as strings x and y have different shapes.

No, the two figures themselves are not identical. That does not, however, preclude them from having an identical meaning. If both are symbolic representations of a wad of ear wax secreted by Eva Braun on October 13, 1934 then they are identical. They would then also be identical to the phrase "a wad of ear wax secreted by Eva Braun on October 13, 1934."I answered your U-OO question. Spring your trap already. If you have a point to make it may be more efficient to state it rather then to pretend you're Socrates.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Jon responds to me:

quote:

---

Are the following two figures, A and B, identical?

---

Once again, you confuse the symbol for what it represents.Here's an example of your failure: The notation used by engineers when referring to various aspects of differential equations and analysis is not the same as that used by mathematicians. In mathematics, the symbol for the square root of -1 is i. In engineering, it's j. In math, derivatives are marked by a tic. In engineering, it's a dot. There's no difference at all between the actual mathematical processes between the two, it's just different conventions.Even the discovery of the calculus shows how you must be careful not to confuse the notation for what it represents: Newton and Liebniz ostensibly discovered the calculus independently. And yet, the calculus we have today is a combination of the two. The methodology that we use is mostly Newton's but the notation that we use is mostly Liebniz's. Newton had the stronger process but Liebniz had the symbology to make it understandable. It is because the calculus is independent of notation that allows us to do this.

quote:

---

A simple one-word answer will suffice.

---

No, it won't.I don't know what those symbols represent and since I know not to confuse the symbol with the object it represents, I cannot answer the question.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Jon writes:

quote:

---

Identicalness has nothing to do with meaning or interpretation or representation.

---

And this is your fundamental failure. It is exactly the other way around. Identicalness has everything to do with meaning. That's precisely how you determine if things are identical: If they mean exactly the same thing.This is why things like infinity - infinity are undefined: Not all infinities are the same.Tell us what your symbols mean and then we'll know if they're identical.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

(emphasis = mine) Where in the OP does it mention Symbology? What the question was does .9999~ = 1 which it does.Edited by bluescat48, : missing [/qs]

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Which is why they may be equal, just not identical.

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

In mathematics, "equal" means "identical".

This is the position I have maintained the whole time. Go back and reread my posts without the presumption that I am referring to the represented values of the figures and just read it as it is, a figure, and you will see. Identical meaning does not make the figures 0.9999| and 1 identical; it does, however, make them equal. So you are incapable of telling me whether two things are identical without knowing their symbolic meaning?

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

It's, like, really silly to quote mine me when your writing to me, and it's even sillier to quote mine me when you include the entire quote on the same page. See the bit that says "No, the two figures themselves are not identical."? Seems I am capable. But to answer your question further: When one is talking about the meaning of a symbol one must know what the symbol means. I would hope that such a tautology would be self explanatory, butLook, no one is arguing that two different shapes are the same shape. No one is arguing that U's an OO's are indistinguishable on the page. It is being argued that different shapes can have identical meanings. It is meaning and only meaning that is relevant to the discussion. The visual aid shape, symbol, what have you is only a stand in for a single, self-identical idea. 0.999~ is identical to 1 because no one is talking about the shape, symbol, what have you; but about the idea they express.Fine, you win the argument your having. Mind telling me who you're having it with. 'cause it ain't no one posting here. No you haven't. You started out saying "This multi-encoding scheme used by Math can give the false impression that there are three separate realities each represented by three distinct symbologies, which, of course, is not the case." There are no three-separate-realities. Those are a figment of your imagination. The false impression is of your own making. Edited by lyx2no, : Unintentional early submission.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Indeed; I agree with you fully. And it is because we have the different conventions that we end up with non-identical modes of representation. I have a feeling your answer is artificial, which means you are lying. Or, your answer is honest, in which case you cannot definitively tell me that a big green blocky blob is not identical to a smaller more fluid white blob. In either case, it ain't much worth continuing on with you, but I will finish with saying the following, a final attempt to show your understanding of identicalness to be flawed:

quote:

---

Wiktionary:
....
3. (not comparable, mathematics) Exactly equivalent.
....
In mathematics, this adjective can be used in phrases like "A and B are identical", "A is identical to B", and, less commonly, "A is identical with B".

---

Only in mathematics can you refer to two things that are equal as being identical, with the understanding that the definition used is especially tuned for the field of mathematics and that the word, when used, refers to the things represented and not the representations themselves. (In other words, Math does not set 0.9999| and 1 as identical, but sets their meanings as such).When referencing things outside of mathematics, your definition is non-applicable, in which case you should have concluded the two blobs to be non-identical. Your application of specialized definitions to generalized reasoning is creating a miscommunication problem.Unless you aren't just using the term in a specialized way but actually do believe identicalness to be dependent on meaning, in which case:Are we to assume that creatures without the mental capacity for symbolic representation cannot distinguish things? Does a cat not know a mouse from a dog? The problem with this understanding is that it rests identicalness on the existence of Symbologies. This reasoning is human-centered: Identicalness is a property dependent on Meaning.
Meaning is a property dependent on Symbologies.
Symbologies are dependent on humans.¹

​

I→(M→(S→H))To maintain your logic as true, making H false (getting rid of humans) would have to render, ultimately, identicalness a non-property. But this is not what we see in the Real world. When two identical things are in identical environments, identical things do happen to them. The Natural World (Reality) does recognize and function subject to identicalness, and would continue to do so without the grace of our bipedal selves. Being identical is a property of the Real world, and is not dependent on whether or not we agree to interpret something as identical or not. The laws of Nature will not change if you call the blobs identicalthey will still be treated as different.This definition of identical as being ultimately dependent on Symbologies is just far far removed from what would be given to the word by any average speaker of the English language.Jon
__________
¹ Though I use humans, we could replace them with 'any entity capable of Symbologies', which does not change the logic, it just means that to prove the point we would have to exterminate many more critters

---

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

quote:

---

In mathematics, this adjective can be used in phrases like "A and B are identical".

---

But A isn't identical to B. B is all lumpy and stuff, while A is all stabby and junk. The topic is 0.999~=1. That's math. Why would you think an argument outside of mathematics was applicable in this thread and introduce blobs? For the purpose of this thread, why would we care what any average speaker would infer?Edited by lyx2no, : Dang, did it again.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.