https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google Groupswpih...@gmail.com2016-08-28T00:30:30Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.potential. > > Given an element we can determine if it is a member of the potential. > > Hence we can define "potential P is contained in X" by "if a is an member of > > P then a is a member of X". Note that the potential > > "every n that can be a member of |N" is not contained in a FISON. >Dan Christensen2016-08-28T00:14:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mW2_2q2cByoRe: Peano Structurespowers of 3. The set of all tensors. The set of all fractions. The set of all algebraic numbers. The set of all definable real numbers. > > > > I'm asking about the properties that natural numbers have that > > mathematicians (not what you call mathematicians of course) use that > > aren't inThe Starmaker2016-08-27T23:43:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2cxMv60HgxcRe: The Next Gamepole and a south > > > > > > > > > pole?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it colder in the north pole of the magnet than the south pole? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a big magnet at the south pole that makes the compass point > > > > > > > > > north??? > > > > > > > >Jim Burns2016-08-27T23:43:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0Re: Peano Structures>>> Do you think no one notice that you are a weasel? >> >> [snip rant against someone I didn't know] Then you don't know Nam. Then you wouldn't know that, rather than a rant, my description was actually quite restrained. By all means, form your opinion from the easily available evidenceJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T23:32:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/M6upZp95Ml8Re: GeogebraTube and Researchgate bans John Gabriel's work and ideas. Ask yourself why.still has a ban on my materials. You can only wonder why any organisation would ban materials that are about mathematics. I mean, even if they were wrong (which they are most definitely not), then others could still how not to think of mathematics. What are they afraid of? Ask yourself, whyJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T23:30:21Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfYRe: News: 100% accurate image recognition using a New Calculus feature in image recognition algorithm.determines whether any two given images are the same or not with 100% accuracy. > > The idea is based on use of a polynomial curve that is rotated and scans both images with random selected locations which are then compared and the determination of sameness, based on this comparison. > > TheJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T23:21:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfYNews: 100% accurate image recognition using a New Calculus feature in image recognition algorithm.A new calculus user has developed an image recognition algorithm that determines whether any two given images are the same or not with 100% accuracy. The idea is based on use of a polynomial curve that is rotated and scans both images with random selected locations which are then compared andquasi2016-08-27T22:38:42Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00Re: Diophantine equation : x^{2n} + y^{2m} = z^2Math Forum is not sci.math. They enable limited read-write access (filtered in both directions) to sci.math for users having a Math Forum account. Thus, if you access sci.math via Math Forum, your view of sci.math is a filtered view, moderated by staff at Math Forum. sci.math is part ofJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T22:33:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EaqQhhD1YmERe: The definition of pseudomathematics.On Saturday, 27 August 2016 15:03:50 UTC-7, Vinicius Claudino Ferraz wrote: > This is abbusive because bart simpson knows a fundamental algorithm for dividing 1 by 3. p by q. > > 1 < 3 > 10 = 3 * 3 + 1 = b * q + r > q = 3 > r = 1 > therefore 1.0 = 0.3 * 3 + 0.1 > > Bart Simpson writesMe2016-08-27T22:31:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mW2_2q2cByoRe: Peano StructuresOn Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 6:29:43 PM UTC+2, WM wrote: > The basic property is that there is the difference of 1 between every pair > of successive natural numbers. Without expressing this fact the natural > numbers are not defined. Of course this function can be introduced later > byJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T22:30:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.stands > > > for the limit of sums of the form 0.9 + ... + 0.00...9. > > > > How would you write all aleph_0 terms of the series which are less than the limit? > > > > Regards, WM > > For a constructive proof of the stupidity, one can watch this video: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVirgil2016-08-27T22:12:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMUntil WM can find a number between 0.999... and 1, which he can't, 0.999... = 1In article <npt1fg$fg$1...@dont-email.me>, Martin Shobe <mash...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/27/2016 12:02 PM, WM wrote: > > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 16:13:55 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > >> The union of any family of sets that doesn't have a largest (by set > >> inclusion) member is not aVinicius Claudino Ferraz2016-08-27T22:03:50Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EaqQhhD1YmERe: The definition of pseudomathematics.This is abbusive because bart simpson knows a fundamental algorithm for dividing 1 by 3. p by q. 1 < 3 10 = 3 * 3 + 1 = b * q + r q = 3 r = 1 therefore 1.0 = 0.3 * 3 + 0.1 Bart Simpson writes this on black board infinitely many times. 1.00 = 0.33 * 3 + 0.01 1.000 = 0.333 * 3 + 0.001Archimedes Plutonium2016-08-27T21:58:11Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/3Qma7pFKSbQPage50, 6-3, True Geometry, PreCalculus, Calculus / Correcting Math textbook 5th ed.Page50, 6-3, True Geometry, PreCalculus, Calculus / Correcting Math textbook 5th ed. PRECALCUS Now calculus is going to be very much a large part of this Correcting Math textbook, because so much needs correction, so much of calculus in Old Math was hideously flawed and in error. So much ofMartin Shobe2016-08-27T21:57:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0Re: Peano Structures(representing >>>>>>>> the factorizatiosn of natural numers) as a subset of the set of >>>>>>>> functions from the set P to the minimal inductive set M, where >>>>>>>> (writing (x U {x}) as x' ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {} e M >>>>>>>> all x e M, x' e M >>>>>>>> all K sub M, ( {} e K & (Virgil2016-08-27T21:53:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.In article <0b38e815-5c8b-44e7-97c5-395cded10008@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 19:08:23 UTC+2 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > Call an entity such as "every n that can be a member of |N" a potential. > > Given an element we canMartin Shobe2016-08-27T21:42:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.What you call mathematics is inconsistent. Being contradicted by it is not a problem. Anyway, not only is the proof simple, it also applies to finite families of finite sets. U{{a}, {b}} = {a, b}. >> Since the set of >> FISONs doesn't have a largest member, the union of the set of FISONsWM2016-08-27T21:14:21Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.of > P then a is a member of X". Note that the potential > "every n that can be a member of |N" is not contained in a FISON. > We can index your famous triangle by the elements of a potential. Then we see that the cardinality cannot surpass all elements of the potential. > We can extendJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T20:46:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/sYCdjWEAt3wRe: For a civil debate with me, go here: https://sites.google.com/site/thenewcalculus/questions-and-answerscontempt for the morons on this site. I will answer questions at this link: > > https://sites.google.com/site/thenewcalculus/questions-and-answers > > I am the moderator of that site, so morons from this site needn't even try to join my group. 8/27/16John Gabriel2016-08-27T20:45:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LEf3H_vhyk8Re: Peano's Crapaxioms and a poem.8/27/16John Gabriel2016-08-27T20:45:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/u2_UQJHXPHQRe: Come on morons. Try to rubbish my New Calculus. Good luck with that!8/27/16John Gabriel2016-08-27T20:45:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/yEVQ_r0TV2QRe: Students: An asymptote is called an asymptote for a good reason. Learn why 1/3 is not equal to 0.333...academics claim that f(x)=1/3[1-10^(-x)] meets its asymptote y=1/3: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hulvl3GgGk > > > Proof that multiplication is not distributed over "infinite" series: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAdtI4MIotg > > Euler and his shortcomings: > > https://www.yoJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T20:45:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/AxPY1n59CxQRe: How we got number - a TRUE story.to have survived even after I terminated my account. Here is one in which I explain the perfect derivation of number that is independent of the human mind or any other mind. > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo 8/27/16John Gabriel2016-08-27T20:44:19Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Mz-_jo69It8Re: Cauchy was an idiot.incompetence and stupidity. The idea of limit is a very ill-formed and failed attempt by Cauchy to fix Newton's and Leibniz's kakka. > > Run the applet to see how I teach and warn my students to this bullshit: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLd254Nlh1bTVQVU0 > > And readJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T20:43:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/doJLTXFuMOIRe: The problem with trying to define rational numbers using set theory.numbers using set theory, we already need to know how to "count". Did you get that? > > That's right, you need to be able to compute the cardinality of a given set. Unless you are one of Cantor's delusional followers, cardinal value means NUMBER, not bijective cardinality myths involving setsJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T20:43:35Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/oizrai13Bw4Re: Trying to make sense of Newton's bogus calculus whilst only 14 years old.8/27/16John Gabriel2016-08-27T20:42:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jpme8blYO_gRe: New: The New Calculus Derivative for absolute morons: Featuring Strang, Huizenga, Kaesorg and a few of their lackeys.STUPID. > > For too long the Simian academics have been attempting to destroy my reputation and rubbish the new calculus. This is an attempt to educate the morons, although I am not holding out any real hope because BIG STUPID cannot be fixed. > > I target the chief primate: Gilbert StrangJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T20:42:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.> By a union you cannot get more than is unioned. That is just too simple and too logical to be true for mainstream morons. Chuckle. > It would mean that the projection or union of the lines in > o > oo > ooo > ... > yields a line that contains more symbols o than every line. That isJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T20:40:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EaqQhhD1YmERe: The definition of pseudomathematics."real number". > 3. There are irrational numbers. > 4. An infinite sum is possible. > 5. 1/3 = 0.333... > 6. 1 = 0.999... > 7. The integral is an infinite sum. > 8. Numbers can be derived using sets. > 9. The derivative is a limit. > 10. Infinity is a well-formed concept. > 11. NaturalBill2016-08-27T19:29:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EaqQhhD1YmERe: The definition of pseudomathematics.he cannot even prove 2+2=4 in it. It is completely useless! > > Dan He just likes trying to get attention. Just ignore him.Snorkeldink Curdlesnoot2016-08-27T19:25:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EaqQhhD1YmERe: The definition of pseudomathematics.Idiot (super)Python2016-08-27T18:58:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0Re: Peano StructuresYour patronizing is despicable, Jim. It is quite likely that I do know as much math as you, and far more in logic (having been studying *in practice* theorem provers for quite a few years). > Would you mind doing some for us. It's up to you what, > but if you pick something like 2*3 = 6 don'tVirgil2016-08-27T18:45:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/5fhfibtZ9p4Re: A definition of the set of prime numbers without reference to the natural numbers?In article <96ab08d1-745e-45dc-b5a3-a784801a4772@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 11:31:00 UTC+2 schrieb Python: > > > > This discussion became quite silly quite a long time ago, it's > > only about bullying Dan now... > > He isVirgil2016-08-27T18:43:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jdVQ_tgQ1l0Re: Limits of sequences of setsIn article <9128a4cf-5b6d-4809-9ef6-f4242fba1d7a@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 01:23:25 UTC+2 schrieb Virgil: > > > > > Since there is no final digit, the real number will remain unknown > > > forever. > > > > Does WM wish toDan Christensen2016-08-27T18:40:50Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EaqQhhD1YmERe: The definition of pseudomathematics.Pretty much says it all! JG's goofy new system is a dead end. Note that he cannot even prove 2+2=4 in it. It is completely useless! Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.comVirgil2016-08-27T18:38:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mW2_2q2cByoRe: Peano StructuresIn article <5de5aac8-6bbd-4c3b-971b-5d9d3a6698f3@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 14:26:48 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > On 8/27/2016 2:29 AM, WM wrote: > > > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 05:41:00 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > >> OnDan Christensen2016-08-27T18:36:55Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0Re: Peano Structureswrote: > >> Dan Christensen wrote: > >> > >>> These "constructions" seem to be a work in progress. Still working out the "fiddly bits" I think I read elsewhere today. And I still haven't seen any attempt to actually prove anything based on any of these "definitions." > >> > >> Proving thingsVirgil2016-08-27T18:35:44Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mW2_2q2cByoRe: Peano StructuresIn article <2047fa0d-50d8-476c-9eb5-590eed496917@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 05:41:00 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > On 8/25/2016 9:22 PM, Virgil wrote: > > > In article <npo3v8$aao$1...@dont-email.me>, > > > Martin ShobeJim Burns2016-08-27T18:31:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0Re: Peano Structures>>>> These "constructions" seem to be a work in progress. Still >>>> working out the "fiddly bits" I think I read elsewhere today. >>>> And I still haven't seen any attempt to actually prove >>>> anything based on any of these "definitions." >>> >>> Proving things goes beyond answering yourVirgil2016-08-27T18:27:30Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0.999 is well defined as being equal to 1.In article <e181e763-8ad1-4753-9c1c-1410eda0073c@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 13:57:00 UTC+2 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:40:51 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > > > > > This equality works as follows: > > >Virgil2016-08-27T18:23:38Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is well defined as being equal to 1.In article <08880661-8147-4c11-95fd-7fef419f0087@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 15:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 10:30:26 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > > > > > I never wished to get rid of them.Virgil2016-08-27T18:21:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0.999... is well defined as being equal to 1.In article <e0f85d65-837c-45d0-bc6a-cf86bef3848a@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 14:51:38 UTC+2 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:32:12 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > > > > > > > > It represents every n that canVirgil2016-08-27T18:19:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0.999... is well defined as being equal to 1.In article <27e904ba-85e0-4b31-8772-bcaf2d4ba149@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 16:13:55 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > > > > The union of any family of sets that doesn't have a largest (by set > > inclusion) member is not a memberVirgil2016-08-27T18:04:36Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0.999... is well defined as being equal to 1.In article <65e0f9b2-3bc6-4d80-8ed2-b1c5bb222620@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: Nothing but Nonsense! For every n in |N, 1 - 10^-n <= 0.999...9 to n nines < 1 and as n -> oo, 1 - 10^-n -> 1 so as n -> oo, 0.999...9 to n nines -> 1 -- Virgil "Mit derJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T18:02:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/k6MDC-8CQ2ARe: Mathematics and the long illusionrationals, > > So,where this poor number (CubRoot 2) can find a place among those constructible numbers, 1. There is no such thing as a constructible number, only a constructible distance. It is not true to think that in order for a distance to be constructible, it must be demonstrated by abassam king karzeddin2016-08-27T17:55:44Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/k6MDC-8CQ2ARe: Mathematics and the long illusionrationals, > > > > So,where this poor number (CubRoot 2) can find a place among those constructible numbers, > > Keep in mind that it (cbrt 2) is not constructible using a straight edge > and a pair of compasses. There are other notions of constructibility. > > > The only suitableVirgil2016-08-27T17:55:03Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0.999... is well defined as being equal to 1.In article <3613681f-284b-4b56-b205-f60e424b2845@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 12:36:02 UTC+2 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 4:13:12 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > > 1) We know "It ain't what you don't knowPeter Percival2016-08-27T17:43:34Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/k6MDC-8CQ2ARe: Mathematics and the long illusionrationals, > > So,where this poor number (CubRoot 2) can find a place among those constructible numbers, Keep in mind that it (cbrt 2) is not constructible using a straight edge and a pair of compasses. There are other notions of constructibility. > The only suitable place or locationVirgil2016-08-27T17:40:32Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolMRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.In article <16260062-38cb-4237-9443-0b67bff5c983@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 21:16:14 UTC+2 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 9:38:24 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > > > > {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U ... = XPeter Percival2016-08-27T17:37:17Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0Re: Peano Structuresthe "fiddly bits" I think I read elsewhere today. And I still haven't seen any attempt to actually prove anything based on any of these "definitions." >> >> Proving things goes beyond answering your original question, which was >> >> How would you define the prime numbers (a subset of N)