sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enRe: Hilarious IB curriculum: The fallacies of 0.333... and 0.999... and 0.142857... and 3.14159...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/UH8emT4HrFY/C5ToMUFLAwAJ
repeating decimals into fractions. I can't think of a more useless exercise except perhaps using the limit verifinition epsilonics formula of Weierstrass. > > > > I usually go a step ahead and teach my students how to do it in different radix systems too. Just to show them how worthless is thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/UH8emT4HrFY
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 14:57:46 UTCRe: Hilarious IB curriculum: The fallacies of 0.333... and 0.999... and 0.142857... and 3.14159...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/UH8emT4HrFY/kRhKKgFLAwAJ
repeating decimals into fractions. I can't think of a more useless exercise except perhaps using the limit verifinition epsilonics formula of Weierstrass. > > I usually go a step ahead and teach my students how to do it in different radix systems too. Just to show them how worthless is thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/UH8emT4HrFY
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 14:53:11 UTCHilarious IB curriculum: The fallacies of 0.333... and 0.999... and 0.142857... and 3.14159...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/UH8emT4HrFY/S32lUc5KAwAJ
The shit IB mathematics curriculum claims that 0.999... is exactly equal to 1. Let's not forget who (Euler) started this nonsense: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel One of the things students have to waste time on, is how to convert repeating decimalshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/UH8emT4HrFY
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 14:49:32 UTCThe New Calculus: Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/XkphOCMVq_E/Q-Pvq5VJAwAJ
The New Calculus works and this is why more and more academics are using it. It has new features not possible using the bogus mainstream calculus, the first you will meet is the auxiliary equation which requires some heavy weight algebra - something most in the BIG STUPID are averse to. Buthttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XkphOCMVq_E
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 14:27:09 UTCRe: Challenge: Find a function in irreducible form with limit at x=k, but not defined at x=k.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY/xiIask9JAwAJ
deter some people from claiming that they have done it. Dudley labels such people as cranks, and he describes many of them in this book. While the reading is entertaining, it is also somewhat depressing, in that no amount of logic or reason can convince a crank that their work is flawed. Theyhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 14:22:09 UTCStudents: I will fail you if you tell me that the general derivative of sin(x) is not always cos(x) !!!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Jt89qzKXDsk/4owf9yNJAwAJ
Poof. Jack Huizenga and dick sucker Anders Kaesorg believe that the derivative of sin x is not always cos x. Cute and chubbie Jack Huizenga cannot understand that the sine series takes ONLY radians as input. Anything else is meaningless. Go to the shit site quora and watch him and his bedhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Jt89qzKXDsk
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 14:19:01 UTCRe: Impartial observer of the battle between JG and the Contemporarys
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08/oSRt7wxJAwAJ
contemporary's hate JG....but his "new calculus" works....even if the > > What makes you think that the "new calculus" is valid and works? Let me help you moron: He tried it and it works! Trala! He is not the only one. You should see the comments on my YT videos. Oh, you do actually need ahttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 14:17:22 UTCRe: Impartial observer of the battle between JG and the Contemporarys
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08/qaetAhxBAwAJ
contemporary's hate JG....but his "new calculus" works....even if the What makes you think that the "new calculus" is valid and works? -- Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain to me what you really mean. I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to behttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08
Peter PercivalTue, 25 Apr 2017 11:51:51 UTCRe: Mueckmeathical Misdefinitions
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zf_6jLq9IXk/hIR_NqY8AwAJ
It is really a hallucination of human minds those modern algebra's ZFC' (axiom) with meaningless Least Upper Bound (axiom) Note this obvious hallucination from the source above: > "The fact that you can't compute the decimal >expansion of a sum from the >decimal expansions of its >addends ishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zf_6jLq9IXk
bassam king karzeddinTue, 25 Apr 2017 10:30:07 UTCRe: Challenge: Find a function in irreducible form with limit at x=k, but not defined at x=k.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY/uXnyOM44AwAJ
Reference: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookV/bookV.html Am Dienstag, 25. April 2017 11:18:31 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > BTW: Ratios 0:0 were already excluded by Euclid(*). Why? > > Because the ratio 0:0 is not comparable. How? > > I guess by Def 7 (***) we get neitherhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY
burs...@gmail.comTue, 25 Apr 2017 09:19:41 UTCRe: Challenge: Find a function in irreducible form with limit at x=k, but not defined at x=k.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY/1B3EE744AwAJ
BTW: Ratios 0:0 were already excluded by Euclid(*). Why? Because the ratio 0:0 is not comparable. How? I guess by Def 7 (***) we get neither 0:0 < a:b nor 0:0 > a:b. And then for 0:0 = a:b in Def 5 (**) we would be lead to a contradiction. Just a guess, is this true? (*) Definition 4https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY
burs...@gmail.comTue, 25 Apr 2017 09:18:31 UTCRe: Challenge: Find a function in irreducible form with limit at x=k, but not defined at x=k.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY/gm1BaRQ3AwAJ
"A mathematical proof of the impossibility of doing something does not deter some people from claiming that they have done it. Dudley labels such people as cranks, and he describes many of them in this book. While the reading is entertaining, it is also somewhat depressing, in that no amount ofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY
burs...@gmail.comTue, 25 Apr 2017 08:48:03 UTCQuestions of one special case of The First Algerbra Family of mine
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mNJTbTlb9VE/mbGIgek1AwAJ
One special case of The First Algebra Family of mine (published in sci.math.research /Hannu Poropudas spring 2014) Multiplication table for unit base vectors * e1 e2 e3 e1 e1 e2 e3 e2 e2 -e1+e3 e3 e3 e3 e3https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mNJTbTlb9VE
Hannu PoropudasTue, 25 Apr 2017 08:26:39 UTCRe: Impartial observer of the battle between JG and the Contemporarys
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08/bMvT4sU0AwAJ
> You have been told over and over again that there is no derivative possible [for sin] > at x=0. i.e. the derivative of sinx is NOT always cosx (according to you) A 5 years old children could spot the contradiction, while John Gabriel cannot.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08
PythonTue, 25 Apr 2017 08:05:47 UTCPage111, 12-28//lousy, crumby terms and terminology, and symbols used in science that are not-science// Correcting Math 5th ed
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rkK_5_6fm_M/DKqIaiw0AwAJ
Page111, 12-28//lousy, crumby terms and terminology, and symbols used in science that are not-science// Correcting Math 5th ed Random Pick Any, rather than lazy corrupt "random" Re: Concept of "random" is not math but touchy feely nonsense Pick Any Number, rather than lazy corrupt "random"https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rkK_5_6fm_M
Archimedes PlutoniumTue, 25 Apr 2017 07:54:48 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/EXf_pCM0AwAJ
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 01:57:06 UTC-5, Franz Gnaedinger wrote: <excrement ignored> > Consider Bn 'Achill' and Bn+1 his 'turtle' and you have a variation of Zeno's > paradox: the fast runner can't catch up with the slow animal ... Who would > have thought that this ancient joke couldhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 07:54:10 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/0aqKidwzAwAJ
Franz Gnaedinger writes: >> Now for a geometrical interpretation of the number columns >> approximating the square roots of 2 and 4. ... > 1 = 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + 9/10000 + 9/100000 + 9/1000000 + > 9/10000000 ... > > 1 = 0.999... > > Each line is 1 from the beginning, byhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
Jussi PiitulainenTue, 25 Apr 2017 07:49:05 UTCRe: Challenge: Find a function in irreducible form with limit at x=k, but not defined at x=k.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY/C6cyA8QzAwAJ
the field of rationals of the polynomials and a rational polynomial function from R->R. They are the same. You have not shown otherwise. > As a field member (x+1)/(x+1) is the multaplicative unit, conventionally 1, while as a rational polynomial function, (x+1)/(x+1) is not (quite) the unithttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 07:47:19 UTCPage110, 12-27//Maxwell Equations derive Peano axioms and then geometry axioms via Pythagorean theorem Correcting Math 5th ed
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/s4LlUGBtsac/4YpXiLszAwAJ
Page110, 12-27//Maxwell Equations derive Peano axioms and then geometry axioms via Pythagorean theorem Correcting Math 5th ed PART 2: AXIOMS AS JUST DETAILS OF THE PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM: Alright, I am going to condense both sets of axioms, and by condense, what I mean is that, just as we arehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/s4LlUGBtsac
Archimedes PlutoniumTue, 25 Apr 2017 07:46:43 UTCPage109, 12-26//Maxwell Equations derive Peano axioms and then geometry axioms via Pythagorean theorem Correcting Math 5th ed
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/z1YpWJzFxWI/aglkQWgzAwAJ
Page109, 12-26//Maxwell Equations derive Peano axioms and then geometry axioms via Pythagorean theorem Correcting Math 5th ed PART 1: Editing and commentary corner: So when the Maxwell Theory, carried by mostly the 4 equations produces all of Physics using the theory as axioms, then thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/z1YpWJzFxWI
Archimedes PlutoniumTue, 25 Apr 2017 07:40:45 UTCRe: Impartial observer of the battle between JG and the Contemporarys
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08/-KgW5F0zAwAJ
contemporary's hate JG....but his "new calculus" works....even if the don't admit it. > > > > > > no, it does not work. > > > > It works very well. > > > > > He can't find the derivative of sin(x). > > > > Fef. You are a fucking liar. > > > > > And that is because he works only with thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 07:40:01 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/lW4DXAYxAwAJ
root > of 4 which is 2. > > Point B approaches the square root of 2 (first case) and the square root of 4 > which is 2 (second case) in the same way. Either both numbers are a mystery > (sqrt2 and 2), or neither of them is. geometrical proof that 1 = 0.999... (sci.math perturbed by ancienthttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
Franz GnaedingerTue, 25 Apr 2017 06:57:06 UTCRe: No one understands calculus better than John Gabriel. No one ever has and no one ever will.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/EyVQzHBizDc/_-oxuV0uAwAJ
No Mr Gabriel. You've done all of it by yourself. Nobody never asked you to add insanity to stupidity and arrogace to ignorance.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EyVQzHBizDc
PythonTue, 25 Apr 2017 06:08:22 UTCRe: Amateur Math...ask SCI Guru......Math develop to Crazy Worlds
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/akMPGolTGNo/Ybv-a3ssAwAJ
ความศานติและความเอ็นดูเมตตา และความโปรดปรานของอัลลอฮฺ Crazy Math make you Strong? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=794887560666237&set=a.397252653763065.1073741825.100004350013006&type=3&theaterhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/akMPGolTGNo
Mr Sawat LayuheemTue, 25 Apr 2017 05:33:51 UTCRe: Challenge: Find a function in irreducible form with limit at x=k, but not defined at x=k.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY/R1QMWxUsAwAJ
What happen when dividing Zero? What relationship between Function and DividingZero? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=794886077333052&set=pcb.794886163999710&type=3&theaterhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY
Mr Sawat LayuheemTue, 25 Apr 2017 05:26:32 UTCRe: Amateur Math...ask SCI Guru......Math develop to Crazy Worlds
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/akMPGolTGNo/ft8SZO0rAwAJ
ความศานติและความเอ็นดูเมตตา และความโปรดปรานของอัลลอฮฺ What happen when dividing Zero? What relationship between Function and DividingZero? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=794886077333052&set=pcb.794886163999710&type=3&theaterhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/akMPGolTGNo
Mr Sawat LayuheemTue, 25 Apr 2017 05:23:41 UTCRe: Mueckmeathical Misdefinitions
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zf_6jLq9IXk/3L4dyS0rAwAJ
one > instead of looking at Bernoulli/Dedekind mathematics with smiling > Galilean common sense. > Pragmatism is good. Faihinger deserved his million. > Unwarranted self-deceptive rigor creates endless maneuvers of rescue. Today's real numbers are modern abstract algebra's ZFC's (axiom's)https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zf_6jLq9IXk
Ross A. FinlaysonTue, 25 Apr 2017 05:09:58 UTCRe: Mueckmeathical Misdefinitions
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/zf_6jLq9IXk/xhR7W50oAwAJ
Am Montag, 24. April 2017 18:12:36 UTC+2 schrieb FredJeffries: > http://math.fau.edu/Richman/HTML/999.htm R. begins with a horribly wrong "evidence" and ends with a more veiled one instead of looking at Bernoulli/Dedekind mathematics with smiling Galilean common sense. Pragmatism is good.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/zf_6jLq9IXk
eckard.b...@arcor.deTue, 25 Apr 2017 04:22:59 UTCRe: No one understands better than John Gabriel. No one ever has and no one ever will.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/EyVQzHBizDc/APT1DgUoAwAJ
stuff > > is pretty nice. I have always liked that platform. Its a nice program: > > Love it. > > > > > > >>> If anyone has been a victim of your imaginary cruel puppet, then > > >>> that would be me. The unbelievably stupid morons who frequent this > > >>> forum have long ago given up tryinghttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EyVQzHBizDc
Ross A. FinlaysonTue, 25 Apr 2017 04:12:04 UTCRe: Impartial observer of the battle between JG and the Contemporarys
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08/K6ZSnFknAwAJ
contemporary's hate JG....but his "new calculus" works....even if the don't admit it. > > > > no, it does not work. > > It works very well. > > > He can't find the derivative of sin(x). > > Fef. You are a fucking liar. > > > And that is because he works only with the finite differencehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08
7777777Tue, 25 Apr 2017 03:59:48 UTCRe: Challenge: Find a function in irreducible form with limit at x=k, but not defined at x=k.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY/Q6ufk-ElAwAJ
Note that there is a subtle difference between P(x)/Q(x) as members of the field of rationals of the polynomials and a rational polynomial function from R->R. As a field member (x+1)/(x+1) is the multaplicative unit, conventionally 1, while as a rational polynomial function, (x+1)/(x+1) is nothttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0AwsIR43sOY
wpih...@gmail.comTue, 25 Apr 2017 03:32:53 UTCRe: Foundations of mathematics were laid by the Ancient Greeks.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0DScIfDZn3k/-6oIdaclAwAJ
Like you, Troll Boy, it seems the ancient Greeks were unable to formally prove that 2+2=4. Like you, they could only wave their hands and say that it, ahem... requires no proof, and hope no one noticed. We have come a long way since their day. Well, some of us have. You are still thousands ofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DScIfDZn3k
Dan ChristensenTue, 25 Apr 2017 03:28:43 UTCRe: Hypocritical March for Science
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/t6stZGeSEbM/HbooWWwkAwAJ
How does Pentcho Valev rank on the Crackpot Index? First, some background on PV: http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm What is the Crackpot Index? See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html Readers can judge for themselves. Danhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/t6stZGeSEbM
Dan ChristensenTue, 25 Apr 2017 03:06:10 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/d2wdHNQeAwAJ
On Monday, 24 April 2017 19:58:25 UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote: <shit deleted> I would be very impressed if you admitted that you are a moron and have now seen the light. Chuckle. I might even be inclined to accept your claim of honesty. Ha, ha.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 01:23:39 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/WyRaiVEeAwAJ
Chuckle. > > You both do agree, for whatever good or poor reason, that > LUB{ 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... } = 1 > > What you and netzweltler don't do is let me use the > notation I want to use to refer to that fact. > > Well, that's bizarre, but it's not like you've glommed onto > all thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 01:14:18 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/Fa6mpHMdAwAJ
>> LUB{ 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... } is _what I mean_ by 0.999... > > One of the important aspects of proving your point or > showing that your perspective is correct, is speaking > the same language. > > LUB{ 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... } is _what IS meant_ by 1 No. You apparently don't knowhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
Jim BurnsTue, 25 Apr 2017 00:58:25 UTCFoundations of mathematics were laid by the Ancient Greeks.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/0DScIfDZn3k/q-r_PMcaAwAJ
No imbecile of the last 2300 years even got close to realising that the foundations were complete. Instead, they were derailed by orangutans such as Cantor, Hilbert, Frege, Zermelo and the like. All these arseholes didn't even possess one hundredth of my intelligence. Their sheep or mythmaticshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0DScIfDZn3k
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 00:09:25 UTCRe: Number is the most important concept in mathematics. Isn't it strange that it took over 2300 years to well define it?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/z3yQiL2Oud4/vDLrL04aAwAJ
that it took over 2300 years to well define it?" > > Agree. > > "The question “What is a number?” is one which has been often asked, but has only been correctly answered in our own time. The answer was given by Frege in 1884, in his Grundlagen der Arithmetik." Moron. Frege was a fuckinghttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/z3yQiL2Oud4
John GabrielTue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:45 UTCRe: No one understands calculus better than John Gabriel. No one ever has and no one ever will.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/EyVQzHBizDc/PlSzWigaAwAJ
out?! > >>> They don't have souls! They are worthless baboons. Even if they had souls, > >>> destroying their souls would be the least of their worries. I would love > >>> to see ISIS burn them alive in a cage as they did to the Jordanian pilot. > > That is hard fucking core man! I would nothttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EyVQzHBizDc
John GabrielMon, 24 Apr 2017 23:58:03 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/akKrRsIZAwAJ
On Monday, 24 April 2017 18:17:47 UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote: > LUB{ 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... } is _what I mean_ by 0.999... One of the important aspects of proving your point or showing that your perspective is correct, is speaking the same language. LUB{ 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... } is _what IShttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
John GabrielMon, 24 Apr 2017 23:50:44 UTCHypocritical March for Science
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/t6stZGeSEbM/zybbuoAYAwAJ
"On Earth Day, tens of thousands turned out for the March for Science in Washington, D.C., despite the rain, celebrating ideas, facts, and empirical data..." https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/04/23/march-science-organizer-titans-einstein-galileo-carson-engaged-politics Actually the oppositehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/t6stZGeSEbM
Pentcho ValevMon, 24 Apr 2017 23:27:43 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/RC9Cy_UXAwAJ
>> I defined 0.999... as LUB{ 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... } as a >> specific case of defining the value of infinite decimals >> (for positive numbers, at least). >> >> Comments you've made lead me to believe that you agree that >> LUB{ 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... } = 1. >> Am I right to think youhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
Jim BurnsMon, 24 Apr 2017 23:17:47 UTCRe: Number is the most important concept in mathematics. Isn't it strange that it took over 2300 years to well define it?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/z3yQiL2Oud4/B0tjfB0WAwAJ
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 4:53:18 PM UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote: "Number is the most important concept in mathematics. Isn't it strange that it took over 2300 years to well define it?" Agree. "The question “What is a number?” is one which has been often asked, but has only been correctlyhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/z3yQiL2Oud4
MeMon, 24 Apr 2017 22:43:58 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/csSscRYVAwAJ
> They don't just believe they are correct, they believe they are provably > rational! Indeed! That's because they are.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
MeMon, 24 Apr 2017 22:25:08 UTCRe: sqrt2 and 2 equally mysterious, or not mysterious at all, and proof that 1 = 0.999...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8/fIdwTW8UAwAJ
number line. > > > > > I'm certainly willing to grant you that that definition > > > is not a consequence of finitely many addition operations. > > > Actually, I've been pointing that out for a while now. > > > > We are talking about infinitely many addition operations. > > > > > >>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tC1AjI3kDm8
netzweltlerMon, 24 Apr 2017 22:13:10 UTCRe: No one understands calculus better than John Gabriel. No one ever has and no one ever will.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/EyVQzHBizDc/r2BsYigUAwAJ
Have you every tried to use it? I have not. However, your GeoGebra stuff is pretty nice. I have always liked that platform. Its a nice program: Love it. >>> If anyone has been a victim of your imaginary cruel puppet, then >>> that would be me. The unbelievably stupid morons who frequent thishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EyVQzHBizDc
Chris M. ThomassonMon, 24 Apr 2017 22:08:06 UTCRe: Impartial observer of the battle between JG and the Contemporarys
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08/-xgTaZ0TAwAJ
Instead of whining about "persecution" and ignore critics, you'd better consider and read critics carefully, you may learn a lot. There for instance: http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/category/cranks/https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08
PythonMon, 24 Apr 2017 21:58:09 UTCPage108, 12-25// Deriving Dirac & Schrodinger Equations from Maxwell Equations//Correcting Math 5th ed
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/M_hEda6M7wg/pG_AdhcSAwAJ
Page108, 12-25// Deriving Dirac & Schrodinger Equations from Maxwell Equations//Correcting Math 5th ed DERIVING DIRAC & SCHRODINGER EQUATIONS FROM JUST MAXWELL EQUATIONS Note to Readers:: I actually revised the Maxwell Equations, so the New Math, New Physics alters both the Maxwellhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/M_hEda6M7wg
Archimedes PlutoniumMon, 24 Apr 2017 21:30:14 UTCPage107, 12-24// CONIC SECTIONS ERRORS and Unification with Regular Polyhedra//Correcting Math 5th ed.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/EKXc9pIzOVw/uYS6QdARAwAJ
Page107, 12-24// CONIC SECTIONS ERRORS and Unification with Regular Polyhedra//Correcting Math 5th ed. by Archimedes Plutonium Also in my research, I have discovered that the Conic Sections are really 6 sections in full, not 5. 1) two lines, either intersecting (cones) or parallel (cylinderhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EKXc9pIzOVw
Archimedes PlutoniumMon, 24 Apr 2017 21:25:08 UTCRe: Impartial observer of the battle between JG and the Contemporarys
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08/UBH4FkcRAwAJ
On Monday, 24 April 2017 16:03:17 UTC-5, Jean Pierre Messager shat: > Time for you to ask for help, Mr Gabriel. A psychiatric ward is waiting > for you. You won't need any help if I ever get hold of you. Back on ignore where you've always belonged. Scumbag!https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rqt1aJH7h08
John GabrielMon, 24 Apr 2017 21:15:19 UTC