Sir/s, Forgive me for intruding .. The University of Liverpool is good ... I went to the engineering and science affiliates at the University of London.
That said, yes, I do not remember much from my Univ. days (as I've said before .. I don't remember what I ate for dinner last night ... :-) ), but .. mathematically written (and since I do not know how to write scientific terms using outlook), '0.(9)' depicts a 'real' number, which 'is' '1'. IIRC, this has to do with integer vs. non-integer, equalities and infinities .. but I forget the terms that were taught. I too didn't quite agree and it took me a bit to grasp what was being presented. Consider, what is '1' divided by '1' .. how about '1' divided by '0', how about '1' divided by .5 or .1 or .01 or .001 or or or or. Again, my apologies for intruding ... just my '.2.(0)' cents .. Kind Regards Jim Thomas 617-233-4130 (mobile) 636-294-1014 (res) j...@thethomasresidence.us (Email) -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of CM Poncelet Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: CORRUPT PDS - I/O ERROR Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >In <4e3ca3f5.1060...@bcs.org.uk>, on 08/06/2011 > at 03:16 AM, CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> said: > > > >>Is it perhaps because you forget that Fortran I was around in 1955 >>and the Lyons Electronic Office (LEO) was around in 1952? >> >> > >No, it's because you've made enough erroneous statements that you have >no credibility. > But you seem to be saying that, unless I can cite from your book the chapter and verse that supports my argument, my argument is false. Was that not also pope Urban's (and his cardinals' and bishops') argument for rejecting Galileo Galilei's assertion that the earth was *not* at the centre of the universe, because Galileo could quote no passage in the pontiff's book which supported his assertion? And did the earth's being at the centre of the universe being 'useful' really matter in determining whether Galileo was right or wrong? To paraphrase it, saying "John and Jeremy" instead of "Jonah and Jeremiah" does not constitute 'erroneous statements' if "Jonah and Jeremiah" are irrelevant to the argument. As far as credibility is concerned, do you remember saying that my proof that 0.999...<recurring ad infinitum> is equal to 1 was false - and that, when I pointed out that this was not my proof but that taught by my university, you said my university was wrong (or words to that effect)? Would you like me to find your email in which you said that? The University of Liverpool is renowned worldwide as a leading authority in mathematics. So perhaps it is your credibility about my proofs being wrong/false etc. (or words to that effect) that should be brought into question. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1391 / Virus Database: 1520/3819 - Release Date: 08/07/11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
