VLFloat, numbers view and mathematicl problems

[wij]

I have recently released a C++ library update.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/latest/download
The main change is adding a class VLFloat for variable length floating-point
number. Although a work of a bit more than two months, not extensively tested,
yet many mathematical questions can be practically answered and verified.
(thanks to C++'s expressiveness, if one use it properly)

What is more significant, IMO, is about the number view. This is the beginning
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/Infinity-en.txt/download
Note that I am not particularly interested in the "0.999...=1" such a little piece of cake.
To the most interested, I guess, would be:
1. lim(x->∞) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
2. Euler's identity is very questionable.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/NumberView-en.txt/download
I showed that Calculus is also questionable for transcendental functions.
As Engineering math., this is OK, because small errors can often be ignored not
to say infinitesimal errors.

In all, mathematicians should re-think the relevant topics, I am just a programmer.

[Paavo Helde]

03.11.2021 11:45 wij kirjutas:

> In all, mathematicians should re-think the relevant topics, I am just a programmer.

In related news, da Vinci should clearly re-think his oil paintings
because I am troubled to map them to RGB values.

[red floyd]

On 11/3/2021 2:45 AM, wij wrote:

> 1. lim(x->∞) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.

Perhaps you should have done your calculus homework in school.

> 2. Euler's identity is very questionable.

Again, perhaps you should have done your calculus homeowork.

[red floyd]

On 11/3/2021 2:45 AM, wij wrote:

> 1. lim(x->∞) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
> 2. Euler's identity is very questionable.

You should contact the people responsible for the Fields medal. They
will be very interested in your mechanism for overthrowing all of
current advanced mathematics.

[Juha Nieminen]

wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have recently released a C++ library update.
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/latest/download

I would highly recommend using github instead. It's much more user-friendly,
as it allows browsing and viewing the source files on the site itself.
This is much easier and practical for people to examine your code.

> To the most interested, I guess, would be:

> 1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.

And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?

> 2. Euler's identity is very questionable.

Care to give a counter-example?

[wij]

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 14:20:31 UTC+8, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have recently released a C++ library update.
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/latest/download
> I would highly recommend using github instead. It's much more user-friendly,
> as it allows browsing and viewing the source files on the site itself.
> This is much easier and practical for people to examine your code.

Sorry, I am not familiar with github. I can't evaluate this.
I might try github if it comes to me easier.

> > To the most interested, I guess, would be:
> > 1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
>
> And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?

Simply "logical", the one we use every day.

Several national institute level mathematicians know this, more had tried
not to use limit. I guess 50% professors knows this, but could not say.

> > 2. Euler's identity is very questionable.
> Care to give a counter-example?

Definition: e≡(1+1/∞)^∞ ... or use limit notation if you like
Then, raise e to the power of x
e^x= (1+1/∞)^(∞*x) ... Is'nt this form more correct?

Does the equation e^x=(1+x/∞)^∞ make sense as the 'definition' of
"raise e to the power of x"?

This is rephrased from (containing outdated info.)
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/Infinity-en.txt/download
I would recommend reference the other link about my number view (geometry is brewing)
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/NumberView-en.txt/download

[Ben Bacarisse]

Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> writes:

> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
>
> And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?

The post is obviously just maths trolling. The C++ code is a side
issue! I replied about the possible GG bug, but actually he/she cross
posted to loads of groups.

--
Ben.

[wij]

Everybody can see the post may be related to math. Your intention, essentially
spreading something worse than trolling, in different way.

Spending 14 years (maybe less) playing smart with olcott made you happy?

Remind you, when I was in this forum, you were probably just a kid.

[Juha Nieminen]

wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > To the most interested, I guess, would be:
>> > 1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
>>
>> And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?
>
> Simply "logical", the one we use every day.
>
> Several national institute level mathematicians know this, more had tried
> not to use limit. I guess 50% professors knows this, but could not say.

That answer makes literally no sense. And doesn't answer my question at all.

>> > 2. Euler's identity is very questionable.
>> Care to give a counter-example?
>

> Definition: e???(1+1/???)^??? ... or use limit notation if you like

> Then, raise e to the power of x

> e^x= (1+1/???)^(???*x) ... Is'nt this form more correct?
>
> Does the equation e^x=(1+x/???)^??? make sense as the 'definition' of

> "raise e to the power of x"?

That's not a counter-example. It's simply another way of defining e.

[wij]

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:08:48 UTC+8, Juha Nieminen wrote:
Firstly, I am not obliged and interested to make everyone understand.
Actually, I don't care. The outcome is yours.

> wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > To the most interested, I guess, would be:
> >> > 1. lim(x->???) 1/x=0 is illogical as a foundation of a 'logical' theory.
> >>
> >> And what would be more "logical" in your opinion?
> >
> > Simply "logical", the one we use every day.
> >
> > Several national institute level mathematicians know this, more had tried
> > not to use limit. I guess 50% professors knows this, but could not say.
> That answer makes literally no sense. And doesn't answer my question at all.

This is a most objective evidence I can provide. At least a couple of books
(in Chinese) from national institute level mathematicians (I don't know how to
translate that institute or name to English. But, I believe the contents is
international) are published for quite some years.
"Logic" can be very long, up to a couple of books to explain. Not as many
students think and believe what they practically understand.
So, what is exactly the question?

> >> > 2. Euler's identity is very questionable.
> >> Care to give a counter-example?
> >
> > Definition: e???(1+1/???)^??? ... or use limit notation if you like
> > Then, raise e to the power of x
> > e^x= (1+1/???)^(???*x) ... Is'nt this form more correct?
> >
> > Does the equation e^x=(1+x/???)^??? make sense as the 'definition' of
> > "raise e to the power of x"?
> That's not a counter-example. It's simply another way of defining e.

Your logical sense is very weak. Several entrance questions I asked recently.
Try solve/explain the following for everybody to show you are qualified.

Let B≡ ∑(n=1,∞) 9/10^n
Question: What is the digit three digits after the decimal point?

Assume B=0.999... = 999.../10^n =(111...*3*3)/(5*2)^n =1
Explain (111...*3*3)=(5*2)^n

Can you draw a line bisects a unit circle? If you can, let say
A,B two chunks. Use your fossilized brain explain to everyone which parts
all the points of the cutting line belong to (A or B or ...).