Quote from: Scowler on March 01, 2018, 01:57:35 PMQuote from: Kreuzritter on March 01, 2018, 01:00:50 PMThat's fallacious. If you would have been in my calculus class, you would have received a huge "F" for outrageous ignorance and stupidity. Of course this would have been impossible, since you could not have passed the entrance exam either. To demand "empiric" examination of an abstract (mathematical) problem is the pinnacle of ignorance. Sheesh!Your argument is fallacious and you haven't responded with anything but an ad hominem, the underlying logical hole in it being the premise that you can just take the tenth voucher free-of-charge. This has nothing to do with anything "empiric" or not, but you yourself have presented not an "abstract problem" as "proof" but one that is concerete.The problem with all of these 0.999...=1 "proofs" is that they are mere tautologies, properly read. 0.999... represents an infinite series whose limit is 1, and the equality sign here needs to be read in that context (limit n-> Sigma = 1). Given this we can manipulate decimal expansions appropriately to "discover" what was implicit in all our operations from the start. There nothing magical or odd or unexpected about it.I'm a postgrad student of mathematics, by the way, with a record of distinctions in my real and functional analysis classes, so spare me the talk about some freshman calculus you did decades ago.

Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 01, 2018, 01:00:50 PMThat's fallacious. If you would have been in my calculus class, you would have received a huge "F" for outrageous ignorance and stupidity. Of course this would have been impossible, since you could not have passed the entrance exam either. To demand "empiric" examination of an abstract (mathematical) problem is the pinnacle of ignorance. Sheesh!

That's fallacious.