hunter1801 wrote:So then I guess you would be able to disprove the mathematicians that have provided research and proof of this concept for centuries. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to subtract or add infinite numbers. Numbers aren't a "process". It isn't like 0.xxx... is repeating over time. Written numbers are just symbols we use to represent a concept. 0.xxx... - 0.xxx... = 0 since you are subtracting two identical numbers.

On a side not, I'm not a high level math major or anything. Just a regular ol' business major. My questions and opinions are just what I see and understand based on what I read.

the point is, these proofs require assumptions that must be accepted in order for the desired outcome to happen. if you don't "believe" in the assumption, then the proof is invalid. if you do believe in the assumption, then it is valid.

my point still remains, until you DEFINE the final value of a repeated number, you don't have a real number by which to do calculations from. they will never be the same, as their value can always be adjusted by repeating the number again...and again...and again... fractals are similar example.

0.9... could be: 0.9999999999999999999999999999999

0.9... could be: 0.999999999999999999999999999999

they can be any variation of these, more 9's fewer 9's...doesn't matter. until you say "there! that's how many 9's there are", you simply do not have a real number from which to do equations with - it's an undefined limit. you only have a number in theory - hence a proof that requires an accepted assumption.

if you do not make a point at which the number ends, then yes, it really does not end - ever...over any amount of time space or anything. it quite literally is a race to infinity. it is not a defined number, and therefore cannot be used in a REAL equation - unless you accept an assumption. in my case, i'm not accepting the assumption - so it doesn't. in your case, you are accepting the assumption - so it works.

right now i just decided to accept the assumption, i agree, it works.

i now refuse the assumption, it doesn't work.

i'm also by no means a mathematician - far from it. i am however a logic addict. the above comes simply from my understanding of math theory, and my interpretation of it through my understanded/applied logic.

-Roach