Developer, Snowboarder, Travel Enthusiast, Adventurer, ENTP. When I write, it’s because I have something to say.

May 15 · 2 min

Thanks for being a good sport here — this material is tricky.

I apologize for taking some time to get back to you on this one. Further, I greatly appreciate the continued explanation and patient help.

The issue we’re having here is absolutely within the standard definition of a limit. In fact, by adding the hyperreals, one enters non-standard territory by definition. They are a…

1

1 response

May 12 · 1 min

Nope. That is not what a limit is — this is.

Ok … let me make sure that I absolutely understand what you are saying, as I am an amateur. I am always looking to convert mathematical symbols and equations into more understandable ‘plain english’ without losing scope of their actual definition.

3 responses

May 12 · 2 min

This is completely wrong.

By asserting that even in hyperreals, .999… is equal to 1, you remove the entire function and purpose of hyperreals. A hyperreal exists in order to provide a method of notation for infinitesimally small ( the difference between 1 and .999… ) and infinitely large real numbers. By asserting hyperreals, the proper notation of .999… = 1 becomes .999… = 1…

1 response