No. I am very sorry but you have been duped. S = Lim S or 0.333... = 1/3 is Eulerian Bullshit.

[Eram semper recta]

Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).

Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.

1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)

Since \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is a constant, we can let

k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)

so that k < 1.

So, 1 = k + 1/(10^n)

Now taking the limit changes the equality:

lim {n->oo} 1 = lim {n->oo} k + lim {n->oo} 1/(10^n)

1 = 0.999... + 0

Thus, k=0.999... BUT we assumed that the constant k < 1 and we have a contradiction! (No morons, this does not prove 1 = 0.999... because we ASSUMED that k < 1. Get it dimwits?!!)

One of the problems with mainstream mythmaticians is that due to brain syphilis, they don't understand how limits work or even what limit theory is about.

To say 1 = lim {n->oo} \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) in simple English, means that the highest value (Least upper bound) that \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) can NEVER attain is 1.

While I always recommend that one studies Euler's Elements of Algebra as one of my top 5 favourite books, I also issue a warning that not everything Euler thought is correct. S = Lim S is a Eulerian brain fart. It is a stain on his legacy.

Do you want to be smarter than Euler? Ha, ha. Fat chance of this because you are incorrigibly stupid!!

0.333... (S) =/= 1/3 (Lim S)


See page 12 of https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLS2pmTHMwel9fOTQ/view

[Transfinite Numbers]

Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.

You definitely cannot handle mathematics.

1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)

Then:

1 = lim n->oo 1 = lim n->oo (\sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n))

= lim n->oo \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + lim n->oo 1/(10^n)

= 1 + 0

Whats wrong with you?

[Python]

John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction

This is the very reason you're not allowed to teach anymore and
were fired last time you tried. You were teaching contradiction,
garbadge, confusion and LIES.

I had to teach a bit of calculus in a CS cursus recently, I asked
students to read your "book" and spot errors. Guess what? They
all succeeded to do so.

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 7:56:47 AM UTC-5, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly John Gabriel and Jew Lover) wrote:

> Whenever I taught limit theory...


You have so obviously never taught anything mathematical, Troll Boy. Even at your advanced age (60+?), you are STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As you have repeatedly posted here:

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Jan. 10, 2017

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019


No math genius, our JG!


Each of the above idiocies were recently confirmed once again here (July 14, 2019) by JG himself at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/TB8goKMbF3c (also see my reply there)


Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words (December 2018)” at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Sergio]

On 11/8/2019 6:56 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Whenever I taught limit theory,

ha, "Limit Theory" a new term no one uses in Math except for birdbrain,
who dreams he taught it.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:34:28 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction
>
> This is the very reason you're not allowed to teach anymore and
> were fired last time you tried. You were teaching contradiction,
> garbadge, confusion and LIES.

Nope. The reason I don't work anymore is due to the fact that I can't tolerate morons. Somehow I never learned this skill.

>
> I had to teach a bit of calculus in a CS cursus recently, I asked
> students to read your "book" and spot errors. Guess what? They
> all succeeded to do so.

You're lying as usual. I get thousands of emails telling me the opposite.

Not so long ago, I received an email from a math lecturer's son to the effect that his father threatened to kick him out of the house if he studied the New Calculus. The student told me that I am correct and no matter how much he tried to correct his idiot father, the guy wouldn't listen. Remind you of someone? Yep - YOU!! Chuckle.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-5, Transfinite Numbers wrote:
> Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.
>
> You definitely cannot handle mathematics.
>
> 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)

Come on Jan Burse, you can't be that stupid hey?

k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)

and k is a constant LESS than 1 AND 1/(10^n) is ALSO a constant greater than 0.

Did you read that part, moron?

>
> Then:
>
> 1 = lim n->oo 1 = lim n->oo (\sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n))
>
> = lim n->oo \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + lim n->oo 1/(10^n)
>
> = 1 + 0
>

> Whats wrong with me?

Good question!

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-5, Transfinite Numbers wrote:

> Poor boy, still struggling with 0.333... = 1/3.
>
> You definitely cannot handle mathematics.
>
> 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)
>
> Then:
>
> 1 = lim n->oo 1 = lim n->oo (\sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n))
>
> = lim n->oo \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + lim n->oo 1/(10^n)
>
> = 1 + 0

Eh? So lim n->oo \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is NOT 0.999... ????!!!!

Chuckle.

[konyberg]

You are doing mathmagic. And in a sorry way!
KON

[Eram semper recta]

No. I don't think so. Mathmagic is part of your mythmatics. I don't do mythmatics. :-)))

> KON

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 2:07:44 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

Look, it doesn't matter whether you say

1 = 0.999... + 0 or 1 = 1 + 0

because you can't get back to the original equation which is:

1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)

You CANNOT reverse the limit which you should be able to do!

Using either of 1 = 0.999... + 0 or 1 = 1 + 0 there is no way for you to get back to the original equation:

1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)

Know why? Because monkey business is not mathematics! :-)))

[konyberg]

You are correct that if put this question to me:
1 = ?
I can not give one answer to this. I can give you several. One of them is 0.999...
KON

[Python]

John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:34:28 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction
>>
>> This is the very reason you're not allowed to teach anymore and
>> were fired last time you tried. You were teaching contradiction,
>> garbadge, confusion and LIES.
>
> Nope. The reason I don't work anymore is due to the fact that I can't tolerate morons. Somehow I never learned this skill.

you were fired, John, you didn't resign. Stop making up stuff.

>> I had to teach a bit of calculus in a CS cursus recently, I asked
>> students to read your "book" and spot errors. Guess what? They
>> all succeeded to do so.
>
> You're lying as usual. I get thousands of emails telling me the opposite.

I'm not. Do you expect them to send you e-mails? Lol. Poor delusional
crank.

> Not so long ago, I received an email from a math lecturer's son to the effect that his father threatened to kick him out of the house if he studied the New Calculus. The student told me that I am correct and no matter how much he tried to correct his idiot father, the guy wouldn't listen. Remind you of someone? Yep - YOU!! Chuckle.

so you are ACTUALLY DOING REAL DAMAGE TO PEOPLE. Take care, John, this
is very bad, and this cannot be allowed for long.

[Eram semper recta]

You are an idiot who can't be helped.


**PLONK**

> KON

[Python]

John Gabriel, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 4:44:00 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
...

>> so you are ACTUALLY DOING REAL DAMAGE TO PEOPLE. Take care, John, this
>> is very bad, and this cannot be allowed for long.
>

> Eat shit and die moron.

Actions have consequences, John. You'll pay for that.

[Eram semper recta]

You poor despicable piece of worthless shit. Are you talking to yourself again?

[Eram semper recta]

In order to realise new knowledge, you first have to admit your mistakes, otherwise you cannot proceed.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 7:56:47 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:

It's difficult if not impossible to fix stupid mainstream academics. However, I am trying to warn others who come across this rubbish and think there might be a problem with their intellect, when in fact the problem is that S = Lim S is an ill-formed definition that has no place in sound mathematics.

[DFS]

On 11/8/2019 1:01 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:


> Not so long ago, I received an email from a math lecturer's son to
> the effect that his father threatened to kick him out of the house if
> he studied the New Calculus. The student told me that I am correct
> and no matter how much he tried to correct his idiot father, the guy
> wouldn't listen. Remind you of someone? Yep - YOU!! Chuckle.

Screenshot of this email or it didn't happen

(blank out any identifying info)

[Eram semper recta]

Oh it happened and you will definitely not learn who is this student.

Here is the email:

Dear Professor Gabriel,

My father is a professional mathematician, and he’s inspired me to learn math. I found your explanations much more satisfying than the bogus epsilon definitions he gave me. When I told my father about your work, he got really mad at me and said you were a well known crank. He said that him and his coworkers tried to get your channel shut down, because they were annoyed with the “misinformation” you spread. He told me not to contact you, or he’d punish me.

I hope I can talk to you again the future about math.

Best of luck,

-------------------------------

There are many who tell me the same things about their orangutan lecturers. Chuckle.

[Python]

John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:

This is outrageously scandalous, a complete disgrace, John: you are
committing an act of ABUSE on vulnerable people. You should be STOPPED
by ANY MEANS. You'll pay for that evil you are doing.

[Eram semper recta]

You will pay for all the deception you have caused. I propose castrating you (although this may not actually be necessary as you probably have no balls) and crucifying you upside down.

Vile, despicable, dishonest, ignorant, jealous, stupid Frenchman!

[DFS]

I knew you were lying.

"he'd punish me" != threatened to kick him out of the house.

Why are you so devious?

[Transfinite Numbers]

Check Rudin, PDF page 65ff, book page 56ff, there you find:

0.333... = lim {0.3, 0.33, 0.333, ...}

= 1/3

The LHS is sum of series, the RHS its value.

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:56:47 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

[Transfinite Numbers]

Or as Rudin says it "s is the limit of a sequence of sums"

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 12:05:11 PM UTC-5, Transfinite Numbers wrote:
> Or as Rudin says it "s is the limit of a sequence of sums"

Exactly moron Jan Burse!

S =/= Lim S

Your national hero Euler was an idiot with S = Lim S.

[Eram semper recta]

You will henceforth never receive a response from me again because it is obvious you are nothing but a troll.

[Transfinite Numbers]

Well he uses the word "is" and "not is",
so we have:

lim n->oo S(n) = S

Or this here:

0.333... = 1/3

Whats wrong with you? Need some glasses.
Here have a banana angry bird:

Angry Birds Rio All 15 Hidden Golden Bananas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOtIDLsiGM

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 1:58:05 PM UTC-5, Transfinite Numbers wrote:
> Well he<snip - crap>

Shut up moron.

[Transfinite Numbers]

Well we all know that 0.9=/=1,
0.99=/=1, 0.999=/=1, ...

And we all know that 0.999...=1.
Does this confuse you?

[j4n bur53]

Maybe lookup Rudin, PDF page 65ff,
book page 56ff, there you find everything.

https://notendur.hi.is/vae11/%C3%9Eekking/principles_of_mathematical_analysis_walter_rudin.pdf


Transfinite Numbers schrieb:

[Eram semper recta]

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 2:31:57 PM UTC-5, Transfinite Numbers wrote:
> Maybe lookup Rudin, PDF page 65ff,
> book page 56ff, there you find everything.
>
> https://notendur.hi.is/vae11/%C3%9Eekking/principles_of_mathematical_analysis_walter_rudin.pdf

Shut the fuck up you troll.

[Transfinite Numbers]

Rudin uses notation {sn} for sequence.
So I guess it is correct. You know there
is some evolution involved:

Euler wrote: 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, &ec.

Today we write: 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, ...

JG writes: burp, fart

LMAO!

[Zelos Malum]

>Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).

You shouldn't teach things you do not understand.

>Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.

Oh my, you mean applying an operator on equations changes them? :O Stop the presses! This blantantly obvious thing must be our headline!

>1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)

Thats fine, but more easily written as 1=1-10^-n+10^-n

>so that k < 1.

for any finite n that is most certainly true.

>Thus, k=0.999... BUT we assumed that the constant k < 1 and we have a contradiction!

THere is no contradiction because the statement is not for a finite n anymore.

n e |N=> k<1

but the thing is, limit doesn't say k=0.999..., it says what is teh value that k can get arbitrarily close to as n growth without bound? 1! or 0.999...

>(No morons, this does not prove 1 = 0.999... because we ASSUMED that k < 1. Get it dimwits?!!)

It didn't change k, k is still less than 1 for any finite n, the thign produced is whatever k can get arbitrarily close to as n grows without bound....which is 1 and 0.999...

>One of the problems with mainstream mythmaticians is that due to brain syphilis, they don't understand how limits work or even what limit theory is about.

And this comes from the boy that just illustrated he ahs no clue what limits are about nor how they work.

[Eram semper recta]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 1:44:43 AM UTC-5, prize idiot Zelos Malum wrote:

> >Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.
>
> Oh my, you mean applying an operator on equations changes them? :O Stop the presses! This blantantly obvious thing must be our headline!

It shouldn't change anything:

Ex.1

3 = 3

Lim 3 = Lim 3

3 = 3

Ex. 2

(1+n)^(1/n) = (1+n)^(1/n)

Lim (1+n)^(1/n) = e = Lim (1+n)^(1/n)

(1+n)^(1/n) = (1+n)^(1/n)

Indeed, you shouldn't talk about what you know shit about!

<snip - crap>

[Sergio]

each Lim equation above contain errors. Please fix.

[Transfinite Numbers]

The point is rather that S=Lim S is utter nonsense.
Its rather that Euler, in the spirit of Archimedes,
would have had:

S_n --> S

You can read this as the sequence S_n exhausts S. The
difference between Euler and Archimedes is only, that
in Euler we have already abstracted away

that we might Square something. Its already modern
Algebra, without some baggage of magnitudes and measures.
In contrast to Angry Bird aka John Gabriel,

who cannot make this step. So whe have this evolution:

Archimedes: Exhaustion

Euler: 0.3+0.33+0.333+ &ec. (Euler used sometimes Latin Et Cetera)

Modern: 0.3+0.33+0.333+ ... (Today Ellipsis are more common)

Angry Bird aka John Gabriel: burp, fart

[Transfinite Numbers]

Check Rudin, there S_n --> S is simply:

S = lim n->oo S_n

You might learn something Angry Bird.
burp, fart is a weird math text.

The Trashmen - Surfin Bird
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gc4QTqslN4

[Eram semper recta]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 12:09:29 PM UTC-5, birdbrain jan burse Transfinite Numbers wrote:

> The point is rather that S=Lim S is utter nonsense.

Of course it is utter nonsense! BUT it is YOUR nonsense. Chuckle.

> Its rather that Euler, in the spirit of Archimedes,

LMAO. How would a moron like you know anything about Archimedes, never mind the spirit of Archimedes?! Too funny. I am rolling on the floor from laughter.

<more shit follows>

[Sergio]

On 11/11/2019 1:26 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 12:09:29 PM UTC-5, birdbrain jan burse Transfinite Numbers wrote:
>
>> The point is rather that S=Lim S is utter nonsense.
>
> Of course it is utter nonsense! BUT it is YOUR nonsense. Chuckle.

nope, it is Mr. Chuckles, yes, JG is the first to come up with that, and
by lying, too.

[Transfinite Numbers]

Well the spirit is the geometric series, and in
Eulers hand it becomes something algebraic. The
invention in algebraic is that a distance or what-

ever is just a variable x:

1 + x + x^2 + ... = 1/(1-x)

In Archimedes we either find things from Euclid,
it seems that he was refering to his lost Elements
of Cubics, and there there is a geometric

juggling with distances AB or whatever. Archimedes
alternative proof uses a weight metaphore, again
not abstracted and algebraic. You don't find these

things in Eulers little booklet:

Carl Boyer's lectures at the 1950 International Congress
of Mathematicians compared the influence of Euler's Introductio
to that of Euclid's Elements, calling the Elements the foremost
textbook of ancient times, and the Introductio "the foremost
textbook of modern times".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introductio_in_analysin_infinitorum

Unfortutantely Angry Birds New Clueless only contains
burp, fart, ... Plain nonsense to say the least.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 7:56:47 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).
>
> Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.
>
> 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)
>
> Since \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is a constant, we can let
>
> k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)
>
> so that k < 1.
>
> So, 1 = k + 1/(10^n)
>
> Now taking the limit changes the equality:
>
> lim {n->oo} 1 = lim {n->oo} k + lim {n->oo} 1/(10^n)
>
> 1 = 0.999... + 0
>
> Thus, k=0.999... BUT we assumed that the constant k < 1 and we have a contradiction! (No morons, this does not prove 1 = 0.999... because we ASSUMED that k < 1. Get it dimwits?!!)
>
> One of the problems with mainstream mythmaticians is that due to brain syphilis, they don't understand how limits work or even what limit theory is about.
>
> To say 1 = lim {n->oo} \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) in simple English, means that the highest value (Least upper bound) that \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) can NEVER attain is 1.
>
> While I always recommend that one studies Euler's Elements of Algebra as one of my top 5 favourite books, I also issue a warning that not everything Euler thought is correct. S = Lim S is a Eulerian brain fart. It is a stain on his legacy.
>
> Do you want to be smarter than Euler? Ha, ha. Fat chance of this because you are incorrigibly stupid!!
>
> 0.333... (S) =/= 1/3 (Lim S)
>
>
> See page 12 of https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLS2pmTHMwel9fOTQ/view

Euler blundered seriously by defining S = Lim S.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel/

Students are no longer fooled by this fallacious definition. They know fact from fiction thanks to my efforts which will only continue to intensify until I have destroyed that big shit pile I call the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia or Church of Academia).

[Transfinite Numbers]

Youre advertising toilet paper again?

[Zelos Malum]

>It shouldn't change anything:

It should change things because your changing the question with it.

It is like saying applying a function f(p/q)=q shouldn't change anything, yet we have

2/3=4/6
but f(2/3)=3 ~= 6=f(4/6)

Applyin an operator does not necisserily retain equality or inequality.

>Indeed, you shouldn't talk about what you know shit about!

I know this considerably more than you. Comming up with a few examples of when it does retain it does not in any way shape or form demonstrate that f(x)=g(x) implies Lim f(x) = lim g(x)

[Eram semper recta]

Wow!!!

"f(x)=g(x) does NOT imply that Lim f(x) = Lim g(x)" - Zelos Malum.

"Mathematics is not about measure or number" - Zelos Malum.

[Zelos Malum]

>"f(x)=g(x) does NOT imply that Lim f(x) = Lim g(x)" - Zelos Malum.

Nice strawman and dishoenst.

What I said, x=y does not imply that f(x)=f(y). Nor x~=y implies that f(x)~=f(y)

For any operator.

[Eram semper recta]

You said:

"f(x)=g(x) does NOT imply that Lim f(x) = Lim g(x)" - Zelos Malum

and if you weren't such a moron, you would have realised already that

"x = y DOES NOT imply that f(x)=f(y)" - Zelos Malum

is laughable bullshit. You are losing your marbles you poor boy! LMAO.

**PLONK**

Actually, x = y VERY MUCH implies that f(x)=f(y).

>
> For any operator.

BrainwashIdiot(Zelos Malum) where BrainwashIdiot is a function and the function argument is 'idiot'. Chuckle.

[Zelos Malum]

>Actually, x = y VERY MUCH implies that f(x)=f(y).

Lets try it, shall we?

I define the function f:Q->Z as follows, for a rational number p/q, we have f(p/q)=q

now, we have 2/3=4/6
f(2/3)=3
f(4/6)=6
so 2/3=4/6, but f(2/3)=3 is NOT equal to f(4/6)=6

A quick demonstration and you were shown wrong.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 14 November 2019 01:41:21 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >Actually, x = y VERY MUCH implies that f(x)=f(y).

<drivel>

>
> Lets try it, shall we?
>
> I define the function f:Q->Z as follows, for a rational number p/q, we have f(p/q)=q
>
> now, we have 2/3=4/6
> f(2/3)=3
> f(4/6)=6
> so 2/3=4/6, but f(2/3)=3 is NOT equal to f(4/6)=6
>
> A quick demonstration and you were shown wrong.

"x = y DOES NOT imply that f(x)=f(y)" - Zelos Malum

"Mathematics is not about number or measure" - Zelos Malum

"A decimal representation of 1/4 does not mean it is measured in base 10" - Zelos Malum

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 14 November 2019 01:41:21 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:

"x = y DOES NOT imply that f(x)=f(y)" - Zelos Malum

[Zelos Malum]

Notice how you did not even respond to the fact I provided a counter example that shows you wrong.

[Transfinite Numbers]

Some brain jogging for angry bird.
Can you verify Cantor series?

1
0.1 2 3 4 5 .... = -
2

Whereby you don't use a fixed basis to
"measure" the number, but the basis

runs 3 5 7 9 ...

[Python]

Zelos Malum wrote:
>> Actually, x = y VERY MUCH implies that f(x)=f(y).
>
> Lets try it, shall we?
>
> I define the function f:Q->Z as follows, for a rational number p/q, we have f(p/q)=q

Hum, not quite. THIS IS NOT DEFINING A FUNCTION Zelos...

> now, we have 2/3=4/6
> f(2/3)=3
> f(4/6)=6
> so 2/3=4/6, but f(2/3)=3 is NOT equal to f(4/6)=6
>
> A quick demonstration and you were shown wrong.

Take it easy, for once you've posted a blunder, don't play John's
favourite game by refusing to admit you were wrong.

[Eram semper recta]

Good boy Mr. Messager!

But you are being dishonest by saying I have never admitted mistakes. On two occasions you have noticed arithmetic mistakes and I admitted these. You see, what you need to understand about geniuses like me, is that our brains normally function so fast that it's possible for some neurons to misfire. The good thing is that we always see the mistake and are able to correct it. Fortunately, spelling mistakes aren't a big deal.

In China, I would always start my classes with 14/4 = 4 and then tell my students that this is correct or incorrect depending on perspective. Then I warned them that sometimes I make arithmetic mistakes and they should be aware that it is due to the fact that I am a little autistic.

So please withdraw your libelous comment and you might gain some more respect. In the mean time you are wrong about everything else. Chuckle.

[Python]

John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 15 November 2019 06:09:16 UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> Zelos Malum wrote:
>>>> Actually, x = y VERY MUCH implies that f(x)=f(y).
>>>
>>> Lets try it, shall we?
>>>
>>> I define the function f:Q->Z as follows, for a rational number p/q, we have f(p/q)=q
>>
>> Hum, not quite. THIS IS NOT DEFINING A FUNCTION Zelos...
>>
>>> now, we have 2/3=4/6
>>> f(2/3)=3
>>> f(4/6)=6
>>> so 2/3=4/6, but f(2/3)=3 is NOT equal to f(4/6)=6
>>>
>>> A quick demonstration and you were shown wrong.
>>
>> Take it easy, for once you've posted a blunder, don't play John's
>> favourite game by refusing to admit you were wrong.

> But you are being dishonest by saying I have never admitted mistakes. On two occasions you have noticed arithmetic mistakes and I admitted these.

I didn't wrote that you have never admitted mistakes John. As a matter
of fact you did so a few times, as you said, but since you are making
mistakes in about 100% of your publications this is not much.

You admitted less than 0.00001% of your blunders.

> [snip sample of John Gabriel's dementia and delusions]

[Eram semper recta]

You haven't provided any evidence of this besides your delusional assertions.

>
> You admitted less than 0.00001% of your blunders.
>
> > [snip sample of John Gabriel's dementia and delusions]

If I had a dollar for every one of your lies, I would probably have quite a few dollars by now. Then if I consider your libel, I would have much more because you really don't write much about mathematics. One look at your last 100 comments will reveal you are nothing but a sewer mouth who runs away from questions, fails to admit mistakes and then libels those who are correct.

You are a very sorry excuse for a human being. How do you even live with yourself? I think I would have shot myself if I were you. It must be really awful to be such a miserable human eh?

[Transfinite Numbers]

You can get one virtual dollar.

Can you verify Cantor series?

1
0.1 2 3 4 5 .... = -
2

Whereby you don't use a fixed basis to
"measure" the number, but the basis

runs 3 5 7 9 ...

[philipe...@gmail.com]

But, Zelos, you are *right* from JG's point of view. Because HE say 2/3 is not the same as 4/6. I'm not sure why precisely he says this wrong. Which of course it is.

Illiterate and self-contradicting, he is.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 15 November 2019 09:05:07 UTC-5, philipe...@gmail.com wrote:
> But, Zelos, you are *right* from JG's point of view. Because HE say 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.

No moron. I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6. You've been drinking Dan Christensen's piss cocktail.

I said that the measures are different.

2/3 is measured using 2 of 3 equal parts of the abstract unit whereas 4/6 is measured using 4 of 6 equal parts of the abstract unit.

Of course if the abstract unit is not the same, then 2/3 =/= 4/6.

These are subtle details which morons like you cannot understand. Simply put: you don't have the intellectual capacity. Sorry.

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 12:46:19 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 15 November 2019 09:05:07 UTC-5, philipe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > But, Zelos, you are *right* from JG's point of view. Because HE say 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
>
> No moron. I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
>

> I said that the measures are different.
>
> 2/3 is measured using 2 of 3 equal parts of the abstract unit whereas 4/6 is measured using 4 of 6 equal parts of the abstract unit.
>
> Of course if the abstract unit is not the same, then 2/3 =/= 4/6.
>

I see you still haven't got to the chapter on fractions in your beige math book, Troll Boy. FYI 2/3 is ALWAYS equal to 4/6.

Really, with all your spare time and at your age you should be going all out for your elementary and high school diplomas. You aren't getting any younger.


Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Jan. 10, 2017

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless)
--Oct. 22, 2019


No math genius, our JG!


Each of the above idiocies were recently confirmed once again here (July 14, 2019) by JG himself at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/TB8goKMbF3c (also see my reply there)


Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words (December 2018)” at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Sergio]

On 11/15/2019 12:10 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 12:46:19 PM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Friday, 15 November 2019 09:05:07 UTC-5, philipe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> But, Zelos, you are *right* from JG's point of view. Because HE say 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
>>
>> No moron. I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
>>
>> I said that the measures are different.
>>
>> 2/3 is measured using 2 of 3 equal parts of the abstract unit whereas 4/6 is measured using 4 of 6 equal parts of the abstract unit.

no wonder JG, your math is all discombobulated.

I always use "Non-Abstract" Units, like meters, or pounds, or ounces,
or light-years, or # of ko0ks on sci.math.

only weirdo pseudo-math alchemists try to use "abstract units" to
convert poop into math, and it still stinks, is still brown and steamy.

[konyberg]

fredag 15. november 2019 18.46.19 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta følgende:
> On Friday, 15 November 2019 09:05:07 UTC-5, philipe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > But, Zelos, you are *right* from JG's point of view. Because HE say 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
>
> No moron. I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6. You've been drinking Dan Christensen's piss cocktail.
>
> I said that the measures are different.
>
> 2/3 is measured using 2 of 3 equal parts of the abstract unit whereas 4/6 is measured using 4 of 6 equal parts of the abstract unit.

What is your abstract unit?
KON

[Sergio]

On 11/11/2019 1:44 PM, Transfinite Numbers wrote:
> Well the spirit is the geometric series, and in
> Eulers hand it becomes something algebraic. The
> invention in algebraic is that a distance or what-
>
> ever is just a variable x:
>
> 1 + x + x^2 + ... = 1/(1-x)
>
> In Archimedes we either find things from Euclid,
> it seems that he was refering to his lost Elements
> of Cubics, and there there is a geometric
>
> juggling with distances AB or whatever. Archimedes
> alternative proof uses a weight metaphore, again
> not abstracted and algebraic. You don't find these
>
> things in Eulers little booklet:
>
> Carl Boyer's lectures at the 1950 International Congress
> of Mathematicians compared the influence of Euler's Introductio
> to that of Euclid's Elements, calling the Elements the foremost
> textbook of ancient times, and the Introductio "the foremost
> textbook of modern times".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introductio_in_analysin_infinitorum
>
> Unfortutantely Angry Birds New Clueless only contains
> burp, fart, ... Plain nonsense to say the least.

yes, Angry Birdbrain stuck his label of S onto 1/(1-x), Birdbrain says
that S = 1/1(1-x), a lie! then he lies saying Euler did that.

Trolls die horrible deaths!

[Sergio]

On 11/15/2019 1:18 PM, konyberg wrote:
> fredag 15. november 2019 18.46.19 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta følgende:
>> On Friday, 15 November 2019 09:05:07 UTC-5, philipe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> But, Zelos, you are *right* from JG's point of view. Because HE say 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
>>
>> No moron. I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6. You've been drinking Dan Christensen's piss cocktail.
>>
>> I said that the measures are different.
>>
>> 2/3 is measured using 2 of 3 equal parts of the abstract unit whereas 4/6 is measured using 4 of 6 equal parts of the abstract unit.
>
> What is your abstract unit?
> KON
>

JS calls it Rectium

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 15 November 2019 14:19:09 UTC-5, konyberg wrote:
> fredag 15. november 2019 18.46.19 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta følgende:
> > On Friday, 15 November 2019 09:05:07 UTC-5, philipe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > But, Zelos, you are *right* from JG's point of view. Because HE say 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
> >
> > No moron. I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6. You've been drinking Dan Christensen's piss cocktail.
> >
> > I said that the measures are different.
> >
> > 2/3 is measured using 2 of 3 equal parts of the abstract unit whereas 4/6 is measured using 4 of 6 equal parts of the abstract unit.
>
> What is your abstract unit?

It's the unit whose measure is ignored in defining the rational numbers.

For example, when you count as in 1, 2, 3, ... you don't care what the size of 1 is in particular, only that it measures 2, 3 and every other number.

So, 2/3 is the measure described using 2 equal parts of 3:

_ _ : _ _ _

Although I have added spaces, it is only for the sake of reading but I am talking about distances.

Now, 4/6 is the measure described using 4 equal parts of 6:

_ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _

If the abstract unit is used, then

_ _ : _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _

because we don't care in particular about the measure of the unit itself.

However, if we choose any unit to be a certain length, then it is not true that

_ _ : _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _

2/3 metre =/= 4/6 mile

In that example, the measure of a unit matters, whereas in the case of 2/3 = 4/6, the measure of the unit does not matter because we use the abstract unit.

So, 2/3 =/= 4/6 if a DIFFERENT unit is being used.

You could say that if we use the same unit, say metres, then indeed 2/3 = 4/6.

[konyberg]

I think that the unit you are so desperately looking for is the number 1.
And I am a little curious why you need using book 5 to show book 7? These books are not connected. Book 5 (magnitudes), while book 7 (numbers),
KON

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 15 November 2019 14:19:09 UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

> fredag 15. november 2019 18.46.19 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta følgende:
> > On Friday, 15 November 2019 09:05:07 UTC-5, philipe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > But, Zelos, you are *right* from JG's point of view. Because HE say 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
> >
> > No moron. I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6. You've been drinking Dan Christensen's piss cocktail.
> >
> > I said that the measures are different.
> >
> > 2/3 is measured using 2 of 3 equal parts of the abstract unit whereas 4/6 is measured using 4 of 6 equal parts of the abstract unit.
>
> What is your abstract unit?

Every comment you make that reinforces that evil bastard's (Dan Christensen and his accomplices) claims, is a smear. You should never believe anything the cunt Christensen or his acolytes say about me because it is either untrue or taken out of context.

He set up another group but he is back here because no one was interested in his bullshit group. Those who remain silent when this bastard spews out libel day in and day out are just as guilty as he is. Christensen's libel cost me two teaching jobs and altered my journey in life in a devastating way.

I would kill the bastard if I ever met him in person. There are no words to describe my hatred for this bastard and I suspect the cunt Sergio is a replica of Christensen. The following link describes what this evil dog's libel caused me:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-discrimination-culture-fit-john-gabriel

You may say, well, those school administrators were idiots to believe in his lies and distortions, but the fact is that had he not misbehaved so, I might have still had one of those jobs. I am homeless thanks to this piece of SHIT and have suffered untold trauma.

I would cut his head off if I could get away with it and other unspeakable things. Even though I stopped responding to the douchebag years ago, he is still libeling me and re-posting the same shit day in and day out.

I am going to get him and he and others like Jean Pierre Messager will pay dearly. I never forget and never forgive.

Next time you are puzzled why I am angry, then remind yourself of these things.

[konyberg]

I have asked you a question, haven't I.
Why not answer it?
KON

[Eram semper recta]

The unit can be any magnitude we choose.

_ : _ can be the unit.

___ : ___ can be the unit.

When we talk about 1 without measure, we mean the ABSTRACT UNIT.

> And I am a little curious why you need using book 5 to show book 7?

Book 5 defines magnitudes and ratios of magnitudes. A magnitude is just the same as a size but without a stated measure.

** A MAGNITUDE IS THE IDEA OF SIZE, EXTENT OR DIMENSION **

That is what Euclid meant even though he wrote a very circular definition.

> These books are not connected.

They are very much connected. In fact, it is no coincidence or accident that Book 5 comes before Book 7. It lays the foundations in terms of ratios of magnitudes.

** A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE MEASURE OF A MAGNITUDE **

> Book 5 (magnitudes), while book 7 (numbers),

So, in geometry we deal with MAGNITUDES and can perform all the arithmetic operations on ANY magnitude (except for 0 which is NO magnitude at all).

To refer to such magnitudes without the geometric objects (constructions, diagrams, etc), we need to give them **names**. The names are nothing more than the MEASURE of said magnitudes.

Book V is important because it leads to the definition of UNIT in Book V:

A unit is a chosen ratio of EQUAL magnitudes. i.e, _ : _ OR _____ : _____ or whatever other ratio of equal magnitudes you choose.

However, in Book V, we move away from a measured UNIT to an ABSTRACT UNIT from which the rational numbers are derived.

> KON

[Transfinite Numbers]

Dumbo at his best, doing dumbo shit.

[Sergio]

meaningless poop

>>
>> ___ : ___ can be the unit.

meaningless shit.

>>
>> When we talk about 1 without measure, we mean the ABSTRACT UNIT.

not "we",

you birdbrain, as you ARE an ABSTRACT UNIT.

>>
>>> And I am a little curious why you need using book 5 to show book 7?
>>
>> Book 5 defines magnitudes and ratios of magnitudes. A magnitude is just the same as a size but without a stated measure.

making stuff up, from your imagination, or is it from your confusion ?

>>
>> ** A MAGNITUDE IS THE IDEA OF SIZE, EXTENT OR DIMENSION **

wrong, wiki for it. your daffynition is silly.

>>
>> That is what Euclid meant even though he wrote a very circular definition.

wrong again.

>>
>>> These books are not connected.
>>
>> They are very much connected. In fact, it is no coincidence or accident that Book 5 comes before Book 7. It lays the foundations in terms of ratios of magnitudes.

they are chapters in your birdbrain, all a tweeter with confusion.

>>
>> ** A NUMBER DESCRIBES THE MEASURE OF A MAGNITUDE **

wrong, as usual.

>>
>>> Book 5 (magnitudes), while book 7 (numbers),
>>
>> So, in geometry we deal with MAGNITUDES and can perform all the arithmetic operations on ANY magnitude (except for 0 which is NO magnitude at all).

Wrong, in 3 ways.

>>
>> To refer to such magnitudes without the geometric objects (constructions, diagrams, etc), we need to give them **names**. The names are nothing more than the MEASURE of said magnitudes.

Wrong again. Google Measure.

>>
>> Book V is important because it leads to the definition of UNIT in Book V:

no, none of your book is important, it is a Troll book, and you give it
away for free because it is worthless.

>>
>> A unit is a chosen ratio of EQUAL magnitudes. i.e, _ : _ OR _____ : _____ or whatever other ratio of equal magnitudes you choose.

wrong again, a Unit is a unit of distance, unit of time, unit of viscosity,

you are way over your head on this, and it shows you never had basic
algebra.

>>
>> However, in Book V, we move away from a measured UNIT to an ABSTRACT UNIT from which the rational numbers are derived.
>>

units do not derive rational numbers, but your brain is like soup,
everything swimming around.

>>> KON
>

[Eram semper recta]

Book V is important because it leads to the definition of UNIT in Book VII:

[Me]

> fredag 15. november 2019 23.10.09 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta følgende:
>>
>> I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.

If 2/3 is identical with 4/6, i.e. 2/3 = 4/6, then there is no property
P such that P(2/3) and ~P(4/6), or that ~P(2/3) and P(4/6).

It seems that you are mixing up "n/m", or (n, m), with n/m.

You know there is a rational number r such that r = 2/3 and r = 4/6 and
r = 6/18 = ...

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 5:44:21 AM UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > fredag 15. november 2019 23.10.09 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta følgende:
> >>
> >> I have NEVER said that 2/3 is not the same as 4/6.
>
> If 2/3 is identical with 4/6, i.e. 2/3 = 4/6, then there is no property
> P such that P(2/3) and ~P(4/6), or that ~P(2/3) and P(4/6).

Agreed. Malum comes up with many gems like this.

[Zelos Malum]

If I have made a mistake, I will admit it, however. f(p/q)=q is a legitimate function. It is not a well-defined function from Q because it is representation sensitive but it is a legitimate mathematical function. Though I guess if you want to be needlessly pedantic, which you might be, it is technically Zx(Z-{0}) -> Z, rather than Q=Zx(Z-{0})/~ -> Z.

If you want to be that pedantic, you are entirely correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-defined#Functions_with_one_argument

Though the original is valid, just not well-defined

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 22 November 2019 02:16:09 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> Den fredag 15 november 2019 kl. 12:09:16 UTC+1 skrev Python:
> > Zelos Malum wrote:
> > >> Actually, x = y VERY MUCH implies that f(x)=f(y).
> > >
> > > Lets try it, shall we?
> > >

<big shit follows>

> > > I define the function f:Q->Z as follows, for a rational number p/q, we have f(p/q)=q
> >
> > Hum, not quite. THIS IS NOT DEFINING A FUNCTION Zelos...
> >
> > > now, we have 2/3=4/6
> > > f(2/3)=3
> > > f(4/6)=6
> > > so 2/3=4/6, but f(2/3)=3 is NOT equal to f(4/6)=6
> > >
> > > A quick demonstration and you were shown wrong.
> >
> > Take it easy, for once you've posted a blunder, don't play John's
> > favourite game by refusing to admit you were wrong.
>
> If I have made a mistake, I will admit it, however.

You are the personification of MISTAKE. You couldn't tell the difference between a hemorrhoid and a dingle berry. Pathetic moron is what you are.

<drivel>

[Zelos Malum]

I make mistakes, but unlike you it is not the majority of what I do.

You make mistakes cosntantly in mathematics and have never the balls to admit it.

[Eram semper recta]

You fool only yourself.

>
> You make mistakes cosntantly in mathematics and have never the balls to admit it.

...a lie and I don't have to defend myself because whether or not I make mistakes is irrelevant provided I am able to correct the same. The only academic I know who made no known mistakes is Archimedes. However, I am certain he did and he was able to resolve the same.

S = Lim S is a very bad idea for all the reasons given.

[Eram semper recta]

Mistakes like these?


"x = y DOES NOT imply that f(x)=f(y)" - Zelos Malum

"Mathematics is not about number or measure" - Zelos Malum

"A decimal representation of 1/4 does not mean it is measured in base 10. 2/10 + 5/100 is not a measure of 1/4 in base 10." - Zelos Malum

"NO LAST 3" and "infinite sum 0.333..." are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE". - Zelos Malum

[Zelos Malum]

>You fool only yourself.

That is what you do every day

>...a lie and I don't have to defend myself because whether or not I make mistakes is irrelevant provided I am able to correct the same. The only academic I know who made no known mistakes is Archimedes. However, I am certain he did and he was able to resolve the same.

Yet you never do, like the whole epsilon-delta fiasko, you never once corrected yourself despite being shown wrong over and over.

>S = Lim S is a very bad idea for all the reasons given.

Another one, because again, none says that S=Lim S_n is not the same as S = Lim S

>Mistakes like these?

None of those are mistaked, Dan Gerbil.

I can respond to all of those however

1: You do not understand what a well-defined function is in mathematics, not your delusion of it, but what it really means
2: Again, majority of fields do not deal with numbers and only 1 with measure, so how can it be about either?
3: You never define what "measure" is, it is just a stupid concept you have and place great value on
4: This is you assuming sum = must be a last anything.

Those are mistakes of yours, not mine.

[Eram semper recta]

"x = y DOES NOT imply that f(x)=f(y)" - Zelos Malum

"Mathematics is not about number or measure" - Zelos Malum

"A decimal representation of 1/4 does not mean it is measured in base 10. 2/10 + 5/100 is not a measure of 1/4 in base 10." - Zelos Malum

"NO LAST 3" and "infinite sum 0.333..." are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE". - Zelos Malum

<PLONK>

[Zelos Malum]

of course, fully incapable to address anything because you know you're wrong

[Eram semper recta]

One look at any of your four statements and all doubt is removed as to who is wrong. Chuckle.

[Julio Di Egidio]

You still feed that troll and spammer, YOU are fucking STUPID.

Julio

[Eram semper recta]

I hate to say this, but you are fucking right! I must be STUPID. It's just that I have developed this weird fascination with Malum. He reminds me of my stubborn younger brother who would get a beating and a warning, and then come back for more. I would tell him (my brother) that even if he merely touched me, I would repeat the pain I inflicted on him. He would come back until he realised that it was futile.

I think the difference between Malum and my younger brother is that Malum will probably never stop coming back because he has a fetish for being beaten. Tsk, tsk. Mad world ...

>
> Julio

[Zelos Malum]

>One look at any of your four statements and all doubt is removed as to who is wrong. Chuckle.

Ain't me cause I can back all of it up with sources, can you?....oh wait you can't!

>I think the difference between Malum and my younger brother is that Malum will probably never stop coming back because he has a fetish for being beaten. Tsk, tsk. Mad world ...

I have yet to be beaten by you, I can cite legitimate sources for my statements and you cannot.

[Eram semper recta]

On Thursday, 28 November 2019 01:50:48 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >One look at any of your four statements and all doubt is removed as to who is wrong. Chuckle.
>
> Ain't me cause I can back all of it up with sources, can you?....oh wait you can't!

Has it ever crossed your brain O moron, that I do not recognise your crank sources? Therefore, "backing-up" does not apply. See if you can figure out this logic.

>
> >I think the difference between Malum and my younger brother is that Malum will probably never stop coming back because he has a fetish for being beaten. Tsk, tsk. Mad world ...
>
> I have yet to be beaten by you, I can cite legitimate sources for my statements and you cannot.

Chuckle.

[Zelos Malum]

>Has it ever crossed your brain O moron, that I do not recognise your crank sources? Therefore, "backing-up" does not apply. See if you can figure out this logic.

By definition, mainstream is not crankery, so your books are crank sources, a legitimate matehmatics book is not crankery

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Friday, 29 November 2019 08:37:53 UTC+1, Zelos Malum wrote:

> By definition, mainstream is not crankery

Which is the definition of anti-crankery: the one-sided rotten coin.

At least true cranks manage to be creative at times...

Julio

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 29 November 2019 02:37:53 UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >Has it ever crossed your brain O moron, that I do not recognise your crank sources? Therefore, "backing-up" does not apply. See if you can figure out this logic.
>
> By definition, mainstream is not crankery, so your books are crank sources, a legitimate matehmatics book is not crankery

Today the meaning of crank is one who thinks differently to the way you do and is convinced the way you think is flawed.

To me, YOU are a crank.

[Eram semper recta]

Hey Shithead,
Didn't you say that responding to this idiot is fucking stupid?

Yep, you are also now fucking stupid!

>
> Julio

[philipe...@gmail.com]

Beating a younger brother? Oh my god, what kind of childhood have you got? Math is not the only trauma on your shoulders...

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 8 November 2019 07:56:47 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).
>
> Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.
>
> 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)
>
> Since \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is a constant, we can let
>
> k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)
>
> so that k < 1.
>
> So, 1 = k + 1/(10^n)
>
> Now taking the limit changes the equality:
>
> lim {n->oo} 1 = lim {n->oo} k + lim {n->oo} 1/(10^n)
>
> 1 = 0.999... + 0
>
> Thus, k=0.999... BUT we assumed that the constant k < 1 and we have a contradiction! (No morons, this does not prove 1 = 0.999... because we ASSUMED that k < 1. Get it dimwits?!!)
>
> One of the problems with mainstream mythmaticians is that due to brain syphilis, they don't understand how limits work or even what limit theory is about.
>
> To say 1 = lim {n->oo} \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) in simple English, means that the highest value (Least upper bound) that \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) can NEVER attain is 1.
>
> While I always recommend that one studies Euler's Elements of Algebra as one of my top 5 favourite books, I also issue a warning that not everything Euler thought is correct. S = Lim S is a Eulerian brain fart. It is a stain on his legacy.
>
> Do you want to be smarter than Euler? Ha, ha. Fat chance of this because you are incorrigibly stupid!!
>
> 0.333... (S) =/= 1/3 (Lim S)
>
>
> See page 12 of https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLS2pmTHMwel9fOTQ/view

A lot of drivel from mainstream cranks always in an attempt to divert from their stupidity of S = Lim S.

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Friday, 29 November 2019 21:22:42 UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 8 November 2019 07:56:47 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).
> >
> > Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.
> >
> > 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)
> >
> > Since \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is a constant, we can let
> >
> > k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)
> >
> > so that k < 1.
> >
> > So, 1 = k + 1/(10^n)
> >
> > Now taking the limit changes the equality:

And changes k, too. Idiot.

> > lim {n->oo} 1 = lim {n->oo} k + lim {n->oo} 1/(10^n)
> >
> > 1 = 0.999... + 0
> >
> > Thus, k=0.999... BUT we assumed that the constant k < 1

As hinted at above: you assumed k<1 for p<=n, you utter idiot. IOW,
it's a k(n) that you have.

> A lot of drivel from mainstream cranks always in an attempt to divert from
> their stupidity of S = Lim S.

Said the terminal idiot who can't even write down that definition.

Julio

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Friday, 29 November 2019 21:38:24 UTC+1, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Friday, 29 November 2019 21:22:42 UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 8 November 2019 07:56:47 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).
> > >
> > > Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.
> > >
> > > 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)
> > >
> > > Since \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is a constant, we can let
> > >
> > > k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)
> > >
> > > so that k < 1.
> > >
> > > So, 1 = k + 1/(10^n)
> > >
> > > Now taking the limit changes the equality:
>
> And changes k, too. Idiot.
>
> > > lim {n->oo} 1 = lim {n->oo} k + lim {n->oo} 1/(10^n)
> > >
> > > 1 = 0.999... + 0
> > >
> > > Thus, k=0.999... BUT we assumed that the constant k < 1
>
> As hinted at above: you assumed k<1 for p<=n, you utter idiot. IOW,
> it's a k(n) that you have.

BTW, it's also very stupid to *assume* that (indeed as fucked up as that
"assume x/x=1"), since it's rather *provable* *from the definition of k*
that k<1 for all n. Where the main point is that you still can't get your
head around what a definition even is.

> > A lot of drivel from mainstream cranks always in an attempt to divert from
> > their stupidity of S = Lim S.
>
> Said the terminal idiot who can't even write down that definition.

HTH,

Julio

[Julio Di Egidio]

On Friday, 29 November 2019 21:45:45 UTC+1, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Friday, 29 November 2019 21:38:24 UTC+1, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Friday, 29 November 2019 21:22:42 UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Friday, 8 November 2019 07:56:47 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).
> > > >
> > > > Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.
> > > >
> > > > 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)
> > > >
> > > > Since \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is a constant, we can let
> > > >
> > > > k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)
> > > >
> > > > so that k < 1.
> > > >
> > > > So, 1 = k + 1/(10^n)
> > > >
> > > > Now taking the limit changes the equality:
> >
> > And changes k, too. Idiot.
> >
> > > > lim {n->oo} 1 = lim {n->oo} k + lim {n->oo} 1/(10^n)
> > > >
> > > > 1 = 0.999... + 0
> > > >
> > > > Thus, k=0.999... BUT we assumed that the constant k < 1
> >
> > As hinted at above: you assumed k<1 for p<=n, you utter idiot. IOW,
> > it's a k(n) that you have.
>
> BTW, it's also very stupid to *assume* that (indeed as fucked up as that
> "assume x/x=1"), since it's rather *provable* *from the definition of k*
> that k<1 for all n. Where the main point is that you still can't get your
> head around what a definition even is.

Or an assumption, for that sake.

[Eram semper recta]

On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:38:24 UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Friday, 29 November 2019 21:22:42 UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 8 November 2019 07:56:47 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).
> > >
> > > Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.
> > >
> > > 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)
> > >
> > > Since \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is a constant, we can let
> > >
> > > k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)
> > >
> > > so that k < 1.
> > >
> > > So, 1 = k + 1/(10^n)
> > >
> > > Now taking the limit changes the equality:
>
> And changes k, too. Idiot.

No idiot. Th first thing you learn in your BOGUS limit theory is that the limit of a constant is the constant.

What the fuck is wrong with you moron?!!!

<PLONK>

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 30 November 2019 09:25:01 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 29 November 2019 15:38:24 UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Friday, 29 November 2019 21:22:42 UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Friday, 8 November 2019 07:56:47 UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > Whenever I taught limit theory, I started with a contradiction not noticed by the idiot math lecturers in the BIG STUPID (mainstream academia).
> > > >
> > > > Taking a limit can CHANGE the equality or equation.
> > > >
> > > > 1 = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) + 1/(10^n)
> > > >
> > > > Since \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p) is a constant, we can let
> > > >
> > > > k = \sum_{p=1}^n 9/(10^p)
> > > >
> > > > so that k < 1.
> > > >
> > > > So, 1 = k + 1/(10^n)
> > > >
> > > > Now taking the limit changes the equality:
> >
> > And changes k, too. Idiot.
>
> No idiot. Th first thing you learn in your BOGUS limit theory is that the limit of a constant is the constant.
>
> What the fuck is wrong with you moron?!!!

And under NO circumstances should it change the EQUALITY.