https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google Groupsburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T15:06:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/eVAwUMJytJsRe: I am hated more every time I publish truth.But can they also solve this? Hey teachel, how we got number this: 1/3 = 1/2 - ln(2)/4 + ln(2)^3/48 - ln(2)^5/480 +- ... Me biggy stupido, how transcendal go rational? This time macca laurin 1/(1+2^x) and valu fo x=1. Am Samstag, 10. Dezember 2016 16:04:28 UTC+1 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T15:05:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZVmT33HPvi4Re: My job here is almost done.But can they also solve this? Hey teachel, how we got number this: 1/3 = 1/2 - ln(2)/4 + ln(2)^3/48 - ln(2)^5/480 +- ... Me biggy stupido, how transcendal go rational? This time macca laurin 1/(1+2^x) and valu fo x=1. Am Samstag, 10. Dezember 2016 16:03:49 UTC+1 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T15:04:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/eVAwUMJytJsRe: I am hated more every time I publish truth.Breaking news JG and WM are nominated for nobel price in cryptography, they were able to produce the last seven digits of pi, solving a long standing problem, read more here: http://9gag.com/gag/aXA4Nwvburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T15:03:49Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZVmT33HPvi4Re: My job here is almost done.Breaking news JG and WM are nominated for nobel price in cryptography, they were able to produce the last seven digits of pi, solving a long standing problem, read more here: http://9gag.com/gag/aXA4NwvJohn Gabriel2016-12-10T14:56:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZVmT33HPvi4My job here is almost done.Exposing the not so obvious crank and vicious troll Dan Christensen has been highly successful. We have seen far fewer posts from the troll and all of them ad hominem. Whenever DC can't converse on others' level, he calls them antisemitic or some other slur. Unfortunately, the process ofburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T14:48:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/wzsvRx6o-J4Re: Cantor ParadoxBlame it further on Gödel, and Gödelization. But his incompletness theorem is in Arithmetic and not in Analysis. Dont confuse the two Am Samstag, 10. Dezember 2016 15:46:01 UTC+1 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > That there is this close interaction between > real world and language seems to beburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T14:46:01Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/wzsvRx6o-J4Re: Cantor ParadoxThat there is this close interaction between real world and language seems to be ignored. Everybody is fixiated on the digital, What computers deliver us, we find 0.999... and 0.333... all over the place. But this is a new medium, an a flight system driving a Boing 777, will also have sensorburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T14:34:47Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/fYJKoFW-Jd4Re: New Video: Simplest proof that 1/3 is not equal to 0.333....But geometric series are always nice, gladly adding this one: 1/3 =_real 1/2 - 1/4 + 1/8 - 1/16 + 1/32 -+ …burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T14:33:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/PbNvu8Fe8u8Re: 1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3. 1/3 is a well formed number.But geometric series are always nice, gladly adding this one: 1/3 =_real 1/2 - 1/4 + 1/8 - 1/16 + 1/32 -+ …burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T14:33:30Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VqBbNxfwRMoRe: Julio De Egidio thinks that 0.(3) is 1/3 as 3.14159... is pi. Bwaa haaa haaaa.Not everything is geometric series. Only two of the below are geometric series, the rest is not. And there is even one non-geometric using purely rationals, its based on Maclaurin of 1/sqrt(1-x^2): I guess we can then show (with some much more work in real analysis): 1/3 =_real 1/4 + 1/16burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T14:32:46Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1MLy5EHm4f4Re: the big j.g st00pydytiNot everything is geometric series. Only two of the below are geometric series, the rest is not. And there is even one non-geometric using purely rationals, its based on Maclaurin of 1/sqrt(1-x^2): I guess we can then show (with some much more work in real analysis): 1/3 =_real 1/4 + 1/16John Gabriel2016-12-10T14:28:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VqBbNxfwRMoRe: Julio De Egidio thinks that 0.(3) is 1/3 as 3.14159... is pi. Bwaa haaa haaaa.converges, a theorem in prime numbers establishes that 1/3 is not measurable in base 10. > > > > In the case of 3.14159..., the fallacy is dismissed because infinity is a junk concept. > > > > http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com > > > > https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClBbBVLs3M-d3dNgU4Vop_Aburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T14:27:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/wzsvRx6o-J4Re: Cantor ParadoxNot really, since communication also contains deixis. So basicall you can have a geometric figure in front of you, and the indicate points and lines, which makes your vocabulary wast. It is a simple idealization that the for each real on real line, there is a constant c_r in your language.John Gabriel2016-12-10T14:27:30Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/PbNvu8Fe8u8Re: 1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3. 1/3 is a well formed number.divided by 1. No division is taking place here whatsoever. k is a well-formed number. Also, we never write k/1, because when we have only just k, we know it means k units. > > Now, p/q means p of q equal parts that when added produce the unit. No division is pending. Division has nothing toJohn Gabriel2016-12-10T14:24:55Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Rwoayse3eu8Re: The kind of problems I could solve when I was 8 years old but most of you morons can't even solve now.morons can't even solve now: > > https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-find-the-axis-and-the-direct-fix-of-the-locus-of-mu#269979 > > https://socratic.org/questions/use-de-moirve-s-theorem-to-find-the-three-roots-of-the-equation-z-3-8i-0#268773 > > https://socratic.org/questions/if-the-Dan Christensen2016-12-10T13:53:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/eVAwUMJytJsRe: I am hated more every time I publish truth.On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 7:26:34 AM UTC-5, Vinicius Claudino Ferraz wrote: > I have compassion for the little children who arrive from class and speak Mom, look here what I found on the internet. One of J. Gabriel is saying that the teacher is wrong. > "My son, in my time there was noVinicius Claudino Ferraz2016-12-10T12:26:34Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/eVAwUMJytJsRe: I am hated more every time I publish truth.I have compassion for the little children who arrive from class and speak Mom, look here what I found on the internet. One of J. Gabriel is saying that the teacher is wrong. "My son, in my time there was no internet."Vinicius Claudino Ferraz2016-12-10T12:22:25Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1MLy5EHm4f4Re: the big j.g st00pydytiGeometric Progression := (a_0, a_1, a_2, ...) a_n = a_{n - 1} q a_1 = a_0 q a_2 = a_1 q = a_0 q^2 a_n = a_0 q^(n - 1) a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_n = = a_0 [1 + q + q^2 + ... + q^(n - 1)] = a_0 (1 - q^n) / (1 - q) When n --> +infty q < 1 ==> q^n --> 0 a_0 + a_1 + a_2 + ... = = a_0 * 1/(1 - q)WM2016-12-10T12:17:25Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/wzsvRx6o-J4Re: Cantor ParadoxAm Freitag, 12. März 2004 09:26:14 UTC+1 schrieb Jesse F. Hughes: > This nonsense question confirms that you simply don't understand > object language/metalanguage issues. (Please note: I only claim a > superficial understanding myself.) There is nothing to "understand". Every language thatWM2016-12-10T12:16:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/wzsvRx6o-J4Re: Cantor ParadoxAm Freitag, 12. März 2004 07:58:11 UTC+1 schrieb Rupert: > > Saying that the "diagonal" number is not definable is self defeating. > > If the "missing" real can't be defined, how can you prove whether > > it is or is not in Nathan's list? > > > > The claim is that the diagonal number is notburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T11:49:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/fYJKoFW-Jd4Re: New Video: Simplest proof that 1/3 is not equal to 0.333....So how do we do real analysis? Lets only look at linear maps. So if we have two reals a, b by series (si) and (ti): a = (s0, s1, s2, ...) b = (t0, t1, t2, ...) Then we can define addition and scaling where r is a rational number: a+b = (s0+t0, s1+t1, s2+t2, ...) r*a =burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T11:17:47Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1MLy5EHm4f4Re: Attention BIG STUPID! 1/3 is a well-formed number.Hey teachel, how we got number this: 1/3 = 1/2 - ln(2)/4 + ln(2)^3/48 - ln(2)^5/480 +- ... Me biggy stupido, how transcendal go rational? Wolfram alpha caput, but this good: https://www.symbolab.com/solver/step-by-step/taylor%20%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%7B1%2B2%5E%7Bx%7D%7Dburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T11:15:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w_8wtGhxIwoRe: New video! The fallacy that 1/3 = 0.333...Hey teachel, how we got number this: 1/3 = 1/2 - ln(2)/4 + ln(2)^3/48 - ln(2)^5/480 +- ... Me biggy stupido, how transcendal go rational? This time macca laurin 1/(1+2^x) and valu fo x=1. Am Samstag, 10. Dezember 2016 11:52:59 UTC+1 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > Hey teachel, me now in bigburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T11:12:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VqBbNxfwRMoRe: Julio De Egidio thinks that 0.(3) is 1/3 as 3.14159... is pi. Bwaa haaa haaaa.Hey teachel, how we got number this: 1/3 = 1/2 - ln(2)/4 + ln(2)^3/48 - ln(2)^5/480 +- ... Me biggy stupido, how transcendal go rational?konyberg2016-12-10T11:00:17Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VqBbNxfwRMoRe: Julio De Egidio thinks that 0.(3) is 1/3 as 3.14159... is pi. Bwaa haaa haaaa.KONkonyberg2016-12-10T10:59:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VqBbNxfwRMoRe: Julio De Egidio thinks that 0.(3) is 1/3 as 3.14159... is pi. Bwaa haaa haaaa.pi - (pi - 3)/10^n = pi + p/q. Give p/q KONBburs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T10:54:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1MLy5EHm4f4Re: Attention BIG STUPID! 1/3 is a well-formed number.Hey teachel, me now in big identity crisis: 1/3 = 1/2 - pi^2/32 + 4*pi^4/1536 - 77*pi^6/368640 +- Whats wlong? All from lucky lucky 1/2*1/(1+sin(x)^2) at x=pi/4 .burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T10:53:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/fYJKoFW-Jd4Re: New Video: Simplest proof that 1/3 is not equal to 0.333....ey teachel, me now in big identity crisisphus: 1/3 = 1/2 - pi^2/32 + 4*pi^4/1536 - 77*pi^6/368640 +- Whats wlong? All from lucky lucky 1/2*1/(1+sin(x)^2) at x=pi/4 .burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T10:53:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/PbNvu8Fe8u8Re: 1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3. 1/3 is a well formed number.Hey teachel, me now in big identity crisis: 1/3 = 1/2 - pi^2/32 + 4*pi^4/1536 - 77*pi^6/368640 +- Whats wlong? All from lucky lucky 1/2*1/(1+sin(x)^2) at x=pi/4 .burs...@gmail.com2016-12-10T10:52:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w_8wtGhxIwoRe: New video! The fallacy that 1/3 = 0.333...Hey teachel, me now in big identity crisis: 1/3 = 1/2 - pi^2/32 + 4*pi^4/1536 - 77*pi^6/368640 +- Whats wlong? All from lucky lucky 1/2*1/(1+sin(x)^2) at x=pi/4 .77777772016-12-10T09:45:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VqBbNxfwRMoRe: Julio De Egidio thinks that 0.(3) is 1/3 as 3.14159... is pi. Bwaa haaa haaaa.lauantai 10. joulukuuta 2016 7.28.41 UTC+2 SPQR kirjoitti: > It is NOT pi proof?WM2016-12-10T09:34:35Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/h6DzK4R-GdERe: WM is REALLY strange ! ! !Am Samstag, 10. Dezember 2016 02:55:05 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil: > > > Infinitely many finite sets can have an infinite union, > > > as the union of all FISONs proves! > > > > Not as long as shifting preserving columns is accepted. > > Unions do not preserve such columnization. That is yourWM2016-12-10T09:32:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/h6DzK4R-GdERe: It is strange ....It would never be able to learn definition from pure text. Language is abstracted from reality (as is mathematics). Things or at least pictures are indispensable. Regards, WMWM2016-12-10T09:14:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/djf-ZZj84H4Re: If a tree falls...Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 16:59:51 UTC+1 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > Now WM claims, because (A) holds the infinite union > of the rows is not N. No, I claim that the infinite union of finite rows has not aleph_0 elements. Of course there is no natural number outside of all rows.WM2016-12-10T08:52:38Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Pf7T5Eav3icRe: Cantor wins, WM loses, as usualAm Samstag, 10. Dezember 2016 01:33:06 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel: > > You are aware that in...@xlog.ch = jan burse = harry stoteles , yes? Not yet. I think harry stoteles is a German because in English the original name is spoken Aristotle without the ending s or sigma as usual in GermanArchimedes Plutonium2016-12-10T08:38:34Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9RSxMOn9NvcY_1.57 = sin(x) a fifth feature of sine, amplitude, period, phase-shift, frequency, and now, center-radiusAlright I may find some symmetry here also, in that frequency and period are reciprocals of one another, making our list be only 4. Amplitude Frequency Phase Center-radius (perhaps a better name is elliptical because it turns the semicircle into a semiellipse). iPhone post APRoss A. Finlayson2016-12-10T07:47:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OGJci4nxBOoRe: A Possibility for Division by ZeroThat is...any number may be labeled as z1 or z2. > > It is the case in division that z1 must always come first while z2 must always come second. > > As you the examples that you asked for.... > > (A(z1) x 0(z2) = A) > (0(z2) x A(z1) = A) > (A(z2) x 0(z1) = 0) > (0(z1) x A(z2) = 0) > >Archimedes Plutonium2016-12-10T07:44:01Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/xAGcceY37NQrough Page73, 8-17,why calculus is the math of motion and is "future seeking"--Correcting Math textbook 5th ed.Alright, time for reflection rather than calculation and following rules. Time for deep thought on the integral and on derivative. Integral is area and area is rather static, not dynamic for it is a quantity that we can easily count up the smaller squares under the function graph. But derivativArchimedes Plutonium2016-12-10T06:56:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9RSxMOn9NvcY_1.57 = sin(x) a fifth feature of sine, amplitude, period, phase-shift, frequency, and now, center-radiusOn Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:44:11 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I suppose I need to reserve time on doing. Amplitude period phase-shift frequency and this new category center-radius, so there are 5 categories in New Math, not 4. > > iPhone post > > AP So before leaving thisconway2016-12-10T06:40:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OGJci4nxBOoRe: A Possibility for Division by ZeroGabriele I had much trouble in understanding your post. But I will reply to the parts that I did. 1. No formula is relevant. A field axiom is. 2. I have offered many examples (mathematical), to others who have expressed interest. I did not in the op because of a desire for simplicity.quasi2016-12-10T06:13:23Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pT4CPzFb_PARe: ----- ----- ----- conjectureit is my understanding You clearly _don't_ understand. You keep repeating variations of the same false claim. >that the conjecture is correct under the given conditions. >The Conjecture is investigated by applying Fermat's Little >Theorem. > >Conjecture: (k, G) = 1 >Conditions: All theJohn Gabriel2016-12-10T06:04:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/1MLy5EHm4f4Re: Attention BIG STUPID! 1/3 is a well-formed number.numbers are defined from the unit in a systematic way using only the notions of difference. > > Read about how we got numbers: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLTjM4SURMUnBEckU 12/9/16John Gabriel2016-12-10T06:03:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/fYJKoFW-Jd4Re: New Video: Simplest proof that 1/3 is not equal to 0.333....12/9/16John Gabriel2016-12-10T06:03:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/PbNvu8Fe8u8Re: 1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3. 1/3 is a well formed number.divided by 1. No division is taking place here whatsoever. k is a well-formed number. Also, we never write k/1, because when we have only just k, we know it means k units. > > Now, p/q means p of q equal parts that when added produce the unit. No division is pending. Division has nothing toJohn Gabriel2016-12-10T06:00:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/w_8wtGhxIwoRe: New video! The fallacy that 1/3 = 0.333...12/9/16Archimedes Plutonium2016-12-10T05:44:11Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9RSxMOn9NvcRe: rough Page71, 8-15, Calculus of sine and cosine in High School--Correcting Math textbook 5th ed.I suppose I need to reserve time on doing. Amplitude period phase-shift frequency and this new category center-radius, so there are 5 categories in New Math, not 4. iPhone post APArchimedes Plutonium2016-12-10T05:38:33Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-JGOmxSYc6IUniv Western Ontario failures in graphing// Stonethrowing Theory, HACNS1 genetics page52Debating on whether to include the 4 parameters of sine wave such as frequency wavelength etcSPQR2016-12-10T05:28:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VqBbNxfwRMoRe: Julio De Egidio thinks that 0.(3) is 1/3 as 3.14159... is pi. Bwaa haaa haaaa.In article <10c349f4-d6e2-4c75-9e32-b0d85a43f8ba@googlegroups.com>, 7777777 <jus...@yahoo.com> wrote: > what is > 3.141592653589793238462...141592653589793238462... ? It is NOT piBiff Henderson2016-12-10T05:16:11Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VqBbNxfwRMoRe: one with 1,00,00,00,00,00 zeroes after itLern teh Engislh you google-posting drool-tard. wrote in message news:5e0a9b72-fb43-4446-9057-6e1f5c72b7c2@googlegroups.com... "Wibble"g.av...@gmail.com2016-12-10T05:00:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OGJci4nxBOoRe: A Possibility for Division by Zeroany A in a binary expression of multiplication or division is only representing z1 or z2. Such that z1 and z2 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that z1 for zero equals zero. Such that z2 for zero equals 1." > > Note...only a z1 and only a z2 may exist in any binary expression of