>>11821493I find it funny when contrarian idiots actually end up taking the role of those they think they're debating. The summation of 3/10^n indeed never reaches 1/3, however 1/3 is the limit of that summation.
You are getting confused because humiliated mathematicians made an exception in the notation of (...) to cover up their embarrassing 0.9999... oversight, which leads to people posting similar arguments about 0.9999... not equalling 1.
If (...) means the pattern continues indefinitely (the real definition before retards made an exception), then 0.999... does not equal 1
If (...) means the limit of the sum, then 0.999... equals 1.
Similarly, the sum of 0.3 +0.03+0.003.... does not equal 1/3, however the limit of that sum does.
So by failing to understand this nuance and parroting things you don't comprehend, you've actually gone against the mathematical convention. Congratulations retard.
>>11821504Given infinite time, sure why not, Ali G.
>>11821505>Wrong. - 100...Actually that is featured when extending my previous steps to infinity. You are incorrectly assuming that the the strings are as wide as they are deep, even though I showed that wouldn't be the case in previous steps.
>Can you?Yep, just use infinite natural numbers for the input of the argument, read "little-endian" and start the diagonalisation from zero to infinity.
>>11821508Uncountability is the inability to pair the set with the natural numbers. If the set can be paired with any strategy whatsoever, then there exists a means to count that set.
