Cantor's notion of countability is trash.

[WM]

There is no permutation of the Xs in

XOOO...
XOOO...
XOOO...
XOOO...
...

such that all positions are covered by Xs.

If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence

XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

all Os could be covered by the X.

Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.

Regards, WM

[sergio]

The above besides being meaningless, has nothing at all to do with countablility, Pupa.

[FromTheRafters]

on 3/19/2022, WM supposed :

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

[sergio]

Das Obige ist nicht nur bedeutungslos, sondern hat überhaupt nichts mit Countablility zu tun, Pupa.

[Gus Gassmann]

What is trash is your idiocy to think that one X and an infinite number of them must necessarily be able to perform *ALL* the same functions. That, of course, is nonsense, I suspect a brain fart either due to your dementia or to your excessive use of alcohol or some other recreational drug.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Maybe it would help to consider the space of words and the
space of numbers as various things.

I.e. the "language of {0,1} Cantor space" and "range of
all infinite 0-1 sequences Cantor space" as different things,
though of course that in the finite they're same, that in the
infinite they're not quite same. This then helps distinguish
any difference between "counting" and "numbering" and helps
explain why "the trans-finite well-ordered is defined ordinary"
while "numbering infinity doesn't necessarily admit a standard model".

Of course WM is rather a drunk nincompoop but that doesn't mean
that because idiots argue against something that there isn't
something along those lines.

I like to think about the space of words and space of numbers as
along the lines of "it's all 0's and 1's down there but all true and
false up here", the same space of all values and ideas.

Then, for Cantor space 0-1 sequences, or 2^w, is that basically
there certainly _is_ a notion of said space what is "square", besides
the usual notion that "as b^p is exponential in p it's entirely narrow".

[Mathin3D]

You fuc ing rit rd, are you trying to rise the ranks among the math.sci crackpots? You have a long ways to go!!!

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Nope, it works just fine. It is your argument that is fundamentally flawed.

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> such that all positions are covered by Xs.

Right. It's like saying that all the blanks in a given radix systems are filled with 3s, that is, 0.333... where X=3.

>
> If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
>
> XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
>
> all Os could be covered by the X.

Or all the blanks covered by the 3.

>
> Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.

Chuckle. Wolfgang, you are a persistent man, but you can't fix stupid. No amount of reason or logic will convince cranks because by definition:

A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence.

>
> Regards, WM

Here you are still arguing about that delusional moron Georg Cantor's "Diagonal Argument"... tsk, tsk.

Of course Cuntor's notion of "cuntability" is a load of trash.

Georg Cantor is the Father of all mainstream mathematical cranks.

[WM]

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 06:14:34 UTC+1:
> lördag 19 mars 2022 kl. 17:35:13 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> >
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> >
> > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> >
> > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> >
> > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> >
> > all Os could be covered by the X.
> >
> > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> >

> Nope, it works just fine.

It works according to (n + m)(n + m + 1)/2 + m = k. Alas for every such k the set of O's has not changed by more than zero.

> It is your argument that is fundamentally flawed.

Why? Look, you can also try to bring the fractions into the first column. Also here you fail for every natural number k

1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ...
...

1/1, 2/1, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 4/1, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 4/1, 1/4, ...
1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 5/1, 2/3, 2/4, ...
3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 1/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 1/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 2/2, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ...
... ... ... ...

to lear any position. let alone reaching

1/1, __, __, __, ...
1/2, __, __, __, ...
2/1, __, __, __, ...
1/3, __, __, __, ...
2/2, __, __, __, ...
...

[sergio]

On 3/21/2022 9:10 AM, WM wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 06:14:34 UTC+1:
>> lördag 19 mars 2022 kl. 17:35:13 UTC+1 skrev WM:
>>> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
>>>
>> Nope, it works just fine.
>
> It works according to (n + m)(n + m + 1)/2 + m = k. Alas for every such k the set of O's has not changed by more than zero.

Fail. No set of O's is required, that is diversion, red herring.

>
>> It is your argument that is fundamentally flawed.
>

<snip crap>

>
> Cantor's notion of countability is trash.

Fail. Your graphics are not math at all.


>
> Regards, WM

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Are you sure they're his? What if it's a sockpuppet?

(A sockpuppet is a fake troll. Not sure how to unmask sockpuppets,
but if you decapitate it it might take the hand with it.)

[sergio]

it would make sense, as this guy knows nothing about math, no algebra, nothing higher than addition.

but his google account seems consistent;

Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2003:c7:8f26:a3b2:6d2e:c6ef:384:918b;
posting-account=jn1PxAoAAAD-XIFhTFFaTyGmTiEGt0_b

[Gus Gassmann]

On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 11:10:22 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 06:14:34 UTC+1:

[...]

> > It is your argument that is fundamentally flawed.
> Why? Look, you can also try to bring the fractions into the first column. Also here you fail for every natural number k
>
> 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ...
> ...
>
> 1/1, 2/1, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 4/1, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 4/1, 1/4, ...
> 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 5/1, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 1/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 1/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 2/2, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ...
> ... ... ... ...
>
> to lear any position.

Your English is slipping! "Lear" does not mean what you think it does.

> let alone reaching
>
> 1/1, __, __, __, ...
> 1/2, __, __, __, ...
> 2/1, __, __, __, ...
> 1/3, __, __, __, ...
> 2/2, __, __, __, ...
> ...

This is your usual nonsense, devoid of any understanding. You have no clue about infinity or limits, and the fact that *EVERY* natural number is followed by infinitely many others larger than it, is your pons, asinus asinorum.

> Cantor's notion of countability is trash.

Your ideas are trash, in particular, but certainly not restricted to, Cantor's notion of countability.

[Dan Christensen]

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:35:13 PM UTC-4, WM wrote:

Huh??? Just curious... How would YOU then classify a set X on which there exists an injective (1-1) function f: X --> N?

Finite Example 1: If X = {3, 9, 27}, then f could be such that f(3)=0, f(9)=1 and f(27)=2.

Infinite Example 2: If X = {1, 3, 5, 7, ... }, i.e. the odd numbers, then f could be such that f(1)=0, f(3)=1 f(5)=2, f(7)=3, and so on.

For an informal development of these notions backed by formal proofs, see my blog posting at https://dcproof.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/infinity-the-story-so-far/

Dan

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

[WM]

horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 17:17:00 UTC+1:
> On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 11:10:22 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 06:14:34 UTC+1:
> [...]
> > > It is your argument that is fundamentally flawed.
> > Why? Look, you can also try to bring the fractions into the first column. Also here you fail for every natural number k
> >
> > 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> > 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> > 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> > 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> > 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ...
> > ...
> >
> > 1/1, 2/1, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 4/1, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 4/1, 1/4, ...
> > 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 5/1, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> > 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> > 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 1/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 1/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> > 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 2/2, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ...
> > ... ... ... ...
> >
> > to lear any position.
> Your English is slipping! "Lear" does not mean what you think it does.

Typo: to clear any position.

> > let alone reaching
> >
> > 1/1, __, __, __, ...
> > 1/2, __, __, __, ...
> > 2/1, __, __, __, ...
> > 1/3, __, __, __, ...
> > 2/2, __, __, __, ...
> > ...

> You have no clue about infinity or limits,

Limits of set theory are rubbish. The best example is McDuck. But here we see it too. All definable transpositions let all places of the matrix occupied. The belief that in the limit this could change is not substantiated with matematics but at most with follish matheology.

> and the fact that *EVERY* natural number is followed by infinitely many others larger than it, is

the proof that Cantor's formula k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m is insufficient to rule all.

Regards, WM

[Ross A. Finlayson]

When sites get paid for traffic of their users' accounts,
and, 90-95% of the accounts are fake or dupes,
it kind of makes you wonder about the accuracy of such metrics,
at all.

One time I was working on this subsystem a click-collector,
and was like "hey I discovered this bug is duplicating hits",
and it was like "don't worry about it". Kind of like the guy
gig'ed to hand out promotions flyers to cool people, who
dumps then in the nearest round-file and absconds with the money.

(As computing resources costs drop sockpuppets become cheap and
real authentication becomes more valuable.)

Anyways Sergio I find the notions of that Cantor's space is
separate models of words and numbers very compelling,
it really ends up solving lots of issues in foundations,
and for that matter seems most clearly reflects "true" foundations.

Also it provides a model of "standard" infinitesimals. Many people
think that the differential is best represented this way.

(That it's primary.)

To that end I have cultivated in this group a hesitant uncertainty.

[WM]

Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 18:08:16 UTC+1:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:35:13 PM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> >
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> >
> > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> >
> > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> >
> > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> >
> > all Os could be covered by the X.
> >
> > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> >
> Huh??? Just curious... How would YOU then classify a set X on which there exists an injective (1-1) function f: X --> N?

A dream of matheologians.

>
> Finite Example 1: If X = {3, 9, 27}, then f could be such that f(3)=0, f(9)=1 and f(27)=2.
>
> Infinite Example 2: If X = {1, 3, 5, 7, ... }, i.e. the odd numbers, then f could be such that f(1)=0, f(3)=1 f(5)=2, f(7)=3, and so on.

There is no permutation of the Xs in
XOOO...
XOOO...
XOOO...
XOOO...
...

such that all positions are covered by Xs. Can you understand that?

Regards, WM

[Gus Gassmann]

On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 17:52:12 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 17:17:00 UTC+1:

[...]

> > You have no clue about infinity or limits,
> Limits of set theory are rubbish.

Everything poo' wittle Mucki don't understand is rubbish. Poo' wittle Mucki.

[sergio]

On 3/21/2022 3:52 PM, WM wrote:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 17:17:00 UTC+1:
>> On Monday, 21 March 2022 at 11:10:22 UTC-3, WM wrote:
>>> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 06:14:34 UTC+1:
>> [...]
>>>> It is your argument that is fundamentally flawed.

<snip crap>

>> You have no clue about infinity or limits,
>
> Limits of set theory are rubbish. The best example is McDuck.

yea, McDuck is another one you still fail on, + got Screwged.

> But here we see it too. All definable transpositions let all places of the matrix occupied. The belief that in the limit this could change is not substantiated with matematics but at most with follish matheology.

that is not math at all, but your imagination. Your brain cells are continuing to definabley migrate transpositions all over the place of your occupied
matrix between your ears.

>
>> and the fact that *EVERY* natural number is followed by infinitely many others larger than it, is
>
> the proof that Cantor's formula k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m is insufficient to rule all.

it is not a proof, it is called an equation, and it holds/rules in all cases.

It is your problem you cannot understand simple equations.


>
> Regards, WM

[sergio]

verwirrtes Durcheinander ist Unsinn

[Dan Christensen]

“Axioms are rubbish!”
-- WM, sci.math, 2014/11/19

This after presenting his failed alternative to Peano's Axioms. He couldn't even prove 1=/=2 in his goofy little system. Hee, hee!

Dan

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 4:54:56 PM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 18:08:16 UTC+1:
> > On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:35:13 PM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> > > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > >
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > ...
> > >
> > > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> > >
> > > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> > >
> > > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> > >
> > > all Os could be covered by the X.
> > >
> > > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> > >
> > Huh??? Just curious... How would YOU then classify a set X on which there exists an injective (1-1) function f: X --> N?

> A dream of matheologians.

It is a nightmare for cranks like you. Deal with it, Mucke! Hint: Mindlessly repeating your failed arguments here is NOT dealing with it.

Dan

[zelos...@gmail.com]

måndag 21 mars 2022 kl. 15:10:22 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 06:14:34 UTC+1:
> > lördag 19 mars 2022 kl. 17:35:13 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> > > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > >
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > ...
> > >
> > > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> > >
> > > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> > >
> > > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> > >
> > > all Os could be covered by the X.
> > >
> > > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> > >
> > Nope, it works just fine.
> It works according to (n + m)(n + m + 1)/2 + m = k. Alas for every such k the set of O's has not changed by more than zero.

Nothing has changed, no O's has been dealt with. The function is surjective

> > It is your argument that is fundamentally flawed.
> Why? Look, you can also try to bring the fractions into the first column. Also here you fail for every natural number k

We do not need to do anything of the sort. It is a function that is surjective and all and that is all that matters, not your fucking matrix.

>
> 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...
> 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ...
> ...
>
> 1/1, 2/1, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 4/1, 1/4, ... 1/1, 3/1, 4/1, 1/4, ...
> 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ... 1/2, 5/1, 2/3, 2/4, ...
> 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ... 2/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...
> 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 1/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ... 1/3, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...
> 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ... 2/2, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, ...
> ... ... ... ...

All irrelevant to cantors function.

>
> to lear any position. let alone reaching
>
> 1/1, __, __, __, ...
> 1/2, __, __, __, ...
> 2/1, __, __, __, ...
> 1/3, __, __, __, ...
> 2/2, __, __, __, ...

This has nothing to do with cantors function.

> ...
> Cantor's notion of countability is trash.

Nope, this only demonstrates that you cannot argue without doing strawmen.

>
> Regards, WM

[Eram semper recta]

You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?

Bravo! that makes a lot of sense. Chuckle.

>
> Regards, WM

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Well, you're certainly one of the grandest oafs on here :)

[zelos...@gmail.com]

måndag 21 mars 2022 kl. 21:54:56 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 21. März 2022 um 18:08:16 UTC+1:
> > On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:35:13 PM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> > > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> > >
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > XOOO...
> > > ...
> > >
> > > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> > >
> > > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> > >
> > > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> > >
> > > all Os could be covered by the X.
> > >
> > > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> > >
> > Huh??? Just curious... How would YOU then classify a set X on which there exists an injective (1-1) function f: X --> N?
> A dream of matheologians.

Why? We can make functions that are injective and bijective to/with N.

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> such that all positions are covered by Xs.

You've already gone far beyond what is necessary to dismiss Georg Cranktor's bullshit.

**There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**

To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is possible.

No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.

>
> If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
>
> XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
>
> all Os could be covered by the X.
>
> Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
>

> Regards, WM

[zelos...@gmail.com]

tisdag 22 mars 2022 kl. 09:18:18 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> >
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> >
> > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> You've already gone far beyond what is necessary to dismiss Georg Cranktor's bullshit.

The crank is you and WM here.

>
> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**

Says you, I can build it mathematically :)

>
> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is possible.

There is nothing in mathematics that says we cannot do it. We are not bound by computers.

>
> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.

You have made assertions but no justification other than you want it so.

[Dan Christensen]

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 4:14:57 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> You're asking an oaf who doesn't know shit about anything if he understands?
>

Speaking of which...

When will YOU learn, Troll Boy?

JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless.

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook.

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

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"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."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"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, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) 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 a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[WM]

I know that he cannot think. But sometimes I forget it. By the way this question also has been asked about 10 times in MathOverflow and MathStackExchange. Nobody could answer, but they were eager to delete the question. Why? Hard to answer.

Regards, WM

[WM]

Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:

> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
>
> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is possible.
>
> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.

Completely correct.

Regards, WM

[FromTheRafters]

WM laid this down on his screen :

Because they can smell a crank a mile away.

[FromTheRafters]

It happens that WM formulated :

But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
*representation* of each real number.

[sergio]

No, it's obviously a fool's game.

[Mathin3D]

You f cking ritaard, if you reject Cantors' argument, then you are making paradoxes an accepted reasoning principle. No constructivist in his/her right mind ventures in that realm. You fu king piece of sh t!

[Eram semper recta]

Not only hard for them to answer. They can't answer because they don't know.

Both those sites are administered by mainstream idiots and generally they delete your questions because they are Nazis whose agenda has nothing to do with hearing and understanding an argument that is questioning or contrary to their statement of beliefs.

Their worth is even less than that of Reddit - a prize trash heap.

>
> Regards, WM

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Nope, they remove it because your questions are garbage quality.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

He is however entirely wrong

[Eram semper recta]

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> There is no permutation of the Xs in
>
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> XOOO...
> ...
>
> such that all positions are covered by Xs.
>

> If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
>
> XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
>
> all Os could be covered by the X.
> Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
>

The thing about such simple, clear arguments is that they are too complex for mainstream mathematics baboons.
If you threw in a lot of bullshit and perhaps several pages of hand waving, you would probably stand a better chance.

So fine, you're telling them there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion, but it's not complex enough. You have to give them something that uses their bullshit beliefs and turn it into a theatre of nonsense - then and only then, will they be dumbfounded beyond their usual inability to comprehend all the layers of excrement so as to "ooh and aah" incredulously at your revelations.

True story:
I watched a video where a professor purposely gave a speech that was full of garbage and although no one understood, all of them clapped in earnest. After the speech, one of the audience approached and informed him that he couldn't understand anything and that nothing made sense. The professor then informed him that he purposely spoke garbage to see if any of the other faculty members would notice as he was of the opinion that most of them never listen in any case.



> Regards, WM

[WM]

Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the sequence where the digits are written.

Regards, WM

[WM]

Eram semper recta schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 11:45:22 UTC+1:

> True story:
> I watched a video where a professor purposely gave a speech that was full of garbage and although no one understood, all of them clapped in earnest. After the speech, one of the audience approached and informed him that he couldn't understand anything and that nothing made sense. The professor then informed him that he purposely spoke garbage to see if any of the other faculty members would notice as he was of the opinion that most of them never listen in any case.

I experienced the same with MathOverflow Cranks:
https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Material/big%20picture%20-%20Checking%20the%20intelligence%20of%20MO-users%20-%20MathOverflow.html

Regards, WM

[FromTheRafters]

on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :

No, the value, the number, is in the formula. An associated sequence is
used to make the representation. You can also make a continued
fractional expansion representation for a number which, itself, may be
an infinite or a finite sequential representation.

I think you are confused about the three dots which indicate a
continuation of a pattern. The value or number itself has no pattern to
continue, but representations may.

[WM]

FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> > FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> >> It happens that WM formulated :
> >>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> >>>
> >>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> >>>>
> >>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> >>>> possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Completely correct.
> >> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> >> *representation* of each real number.
> >
> > Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> > sequence where the digits are written.
> No, the value, the number, is in the formula.

So it is.

> An associated sequence is
> used to make the representation.

But not completely, because there is no last digit. A completely representing sequence has an end signal.

> You can also make a continued
> fractional expansion representation for a number which,

which is also given by a finite formula.

> itself, may be
> an infinite or a finite sequential representation.

Every finite sequence is a formula.

>
> I think you are confused about the three dots which indicate a
> continuation of a pattern

which is not existing without the formula.

Regards, WM

[WM]

> Nope, they remove it because

they are cranks. A reak garbage question is this one: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Material/big%20picture%20-%20Checking%20the%20intelligence%20of%20MO-users%20-%20MathOverflow.html

Like you they are unable to understand that the X will never cover all O let alone all matrixplaces although every step than can be checked leaves the nunbers of X and O absolutely constant. They are unable, like you, to understand that every column has precisely the same number of places and therefore Cantor's claim is much more foolish than what has put him to the madhouse. Under normal conditions everybody claiming that there are as many fractions as natnumnbers (which is the true meaning of bijection: precisely as many) should be comitted to a madhouse.

Regards, WM

[FromTheRafters]

WM wrote :

Will you still have internet access?

[sergio]

On 3/23/2022 7:14 AM, WM wrote:
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
>> on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
>>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
>>>> It happens that WM formulated :
>>>>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
>>>>>
>>>>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Completely correct.
>>>> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
>>>> *representation* of each real number.
>>>
>>> Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
>>> sequence where the digits are written.
>> No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
>
> So it is.
>
>
>> An associated sequence is
>> used to make the representation.
>
> But not completely, because there is no last digit. A completely representing sequence has an end signal.

Wrong. All fractions have repeating decimal patterns. Fail.
More diversions and red herring from WM the Deceiver.

>
>> You can also make a continued
>> fractional expansion representation for a number which,
>
> which is also given by a finite formula.

wrong topic.

>
>> itself, may be
>> an infinite or a finite sequential representation.
>
> Every finite sequence is a formula.

Wrong. {1,2} is a finite sequence. you fail on common nomenclature or representations for numbers, WM the Deciever.

>>
>> I think you are confused about the three dots which indicate a
>> continuation of a pattern
>
> which is not existing without the formula.

Wrong again. study this hard => ...


>
> Regards, WM

[Ross A. Finlayson]

I have a much bigger hammer.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:14:28 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> > on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> > > FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> > >> It happens that WM formulated :
> > >>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> > >>>
> > >>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> > >>>> possible.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>> Completely correct.
> > >> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> > >> *representation* of each real number.
> > >
> > > Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> > > sequence where the digits are written.
> > No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
> So it is.

It's not even in the formula because a formula is not a number and a number is not a formula.

number =/= formula

I suppose if one bothers to ask why they have different names, the meaning might become clearer.

A number is a name given to a measure that describes (not partially, not approximately, not with "3 dots") a magnitude or size.

[Jim Burns]

On 3/23/2022 8:14 AM, WM wrote:
> FromTheRafters schrieb
> am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:

>> An associated sequence is
>> used to make the representation.
>
> But not completely, because there is no last digit.
> A completely representing sequence has an end signal.

Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
represent in different ways.

----
For *finite digit sequences* it's enough that,
for the operations "add one" and "divide by ten",
each input has one and only one output.

For each finite digit sequence,
there is a finite sequence of those operations.
For example, ".12" has
|add one|add one|divide by ten|add one|divide by ten|

There is no step of the operation-sequence which
does not have one and only one output. Including
the last operation-step.

We define that one and only one output of the last
operation to be what the finite digit sequence represents.

Having a last operation and having a last digit is a
necessary part of representing _for finite digit sequences_

----
That's not how an *infinite digit sequence* represents.

Where a finite digit sequence has a finite sequence of
operations and a last operation,
an infinite digit sequence has an infinite sequence of
finite initial digit-segments.

For each finite initial digit-segment, there is a finite
sequence of operations, as before, and an interval
output from the finite sequence's last operation.

So, for an infinite digit sequence, there is
an infinite sequence of finite initial digit-sequences
and an infinite sequence of intervals.

We know that there is _one and only one_ point which is
in each interval in that infinite sequence.
We define that one and only one point to be what
the infinite digit sequence represents.

----
Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
are different in whether there is a last digit and
a last operation outputting what is represented.

Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
are the same in representing one and only one point.

It's "one and only one point" which we need
for representing. We don't need "last operation".

[Mathin3D]

You two crackpots should meet, get a room, and blow each other.

[sergio]

You are unable to understand Cantors Enumeration, which is by using simple indexing, one can convert a matrix into a sequence.

Each photo you look at today has been serialized into a sequence and then back into a matrix at least once.

Cantor is just a lot smarter than you are.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

I think there is a difference between the sequences in
binary, and, sequences in trinary or higher radix.

Not just a difference in the labels, actually there are
differences in the spaces.

It's a matter of deduction that from the properties of the
space, and that basically, reading down a column of
the rows in the space, a fixed portion of the rows have
the given portion of the values by the uniform values.

Then of course besides Eudoxus/Dedkind/Cauchy I point
to usual notions of line-drawing as also modeling continuity,
when then for Hardy per geometry, that these numbers
relate to the points variously "in" or "on" the line, Euclid's.


Also recently I was thinking about the correlation coefficient
as another way to define the theorems of a probability theory,
with respect to pdf, CDF, MGF, ..., if you are familiar with probability
theory and its usual formalisms, with respect to such notions as
"the naturals at uniform random".

When thinking about infinity these are usual enough considerations.

Of course I wouldn't point out line-drawing and your mention
of the use of the limit without pointing out that the equivalency
function or here sweep is the limit of usual uniform partitions
of unity by integers (naturals).

The limit of course is the fundamental tool for statements about
exhaustion, since Cauchy/Weierstrass of course. (From whom the
formalisms of real analysis are today as about the complete ordered
field, and of course real numbers in set theory from the complete ordered
field are exactly equivalence classes of sequences that are Cauchy, and
not Dedekind cuts or some such thing that is simply an assignment
like initial ordinals to cardinalities.)

Then of course your brick-batting of WM is easy enough that for
a challenge I encourage you to take a few shots at this.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Those are "raster graphics", there are also, "vector graphics".

I.e. in the old days there were even vector/plotter monitors, that basically instead of
interlacing at a constant rate basically were driven by analog and vector paths.

So, don't confuse today's ubiquitous with what else could be.

If you'd like to know more about television and 6 MHz bandwifth, and YCbCr, and
today's usual algorithms like the DCT and DWT, after RGB, and variously the
tristimulus colorspaces and even for that matter the entire construction of
LCD and LED displays, there's quite plenty to it, then also you might be interested
in vector graphics or for that matter, round monitors.

You can learn a lot from information and signal theory.

Because, each photo you look at today, with your eyeball,
was projected on your retina, and rolled up to the nerve in the middle.

[sergio]

On 3/23/2022 9:58 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 2:37:38 PM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
>> On 3/23/2022 7:25 AM, WM wrote:
>>> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 06:44:19 UTC+1:
>>>> tisdag 22 mars 2022 kl. 15:55:55 UTC+1 skrev WM:
>>
>>>
>>> Like you they are unable to understand that the X will never cover all O let alone all matrixplaces although every step than can be checked leaves the nunbers of X and O absolutely constant. They are unable, like you, to understand that every column has precisely the same number of places and therefore Cantor's claim is much more foolish than what has put him to the madhouse. Under normal conditions everybody claiming that there are as many fractions as natnumnbers (which is the true meaning of bijection: precisely as many) should be comitted to a madhouse.
>>>
>>> Regards, WM
>> You are unable to understand Cantors Enumeration, which is by using simple indexing, one can convert a matrix into a sequence.
>>
>> Each photo you look at today has been serialized into a sequence and then back into a matrix at least once.
>>
>> Cantor is just a lot smarter than you are.
>
> Those are "raster graphics", there are also, "vector graphics".

and today they send transforms of the pictures instead, like an FFT of the picture, they send the FFT, but I think they use the descrete cosign
transform, DCT, notice how when you have low signal it pixulates into smaller squares with odd bar patterns ?

(but all these ways take a picture, a matrix of values, and puts it into a linear sequence to be transmitted)

(ALSO, if you listen to shortwave, checkout the hundreds of advanced modulations used today! (you can get an SDRplay radio for $100, hook it up to your
PC, cool stuff))

>
> I.e. in the old days there were even vector/plotter monitors, that basically instead of
> interlacing at a constant rate basically were driven by analog and vector paths.

air traffic control in the 90s had the big round tubes

>
> So, don't confuse today's ubiquitous with what else could be.
>
> If you'd like to know more about television and 6 MHz bandwifth, and YCbCr, and
> today's usual algorithms like the DCT and DWT, after RGB, and variously the
> tristimulus colorspaces and even for that matter the entire construction of
> LCD and LED displays, there's quite plenty to it, then also you might be interested
> in vector graphics or for that matter, round monitors.
>
> You can learn a lot from information and signal theory.
>
> Because, each photo you look at today, with your eyeball,
> was projected on your retina, and rolled up to the nerve in the middle.
>

then your brain has to figure it out, I dont think anyone has figured that out yet, closest thing is neural networks, which is used bigtime for image
recognition, but you have to train it... (you can do it with a raspberry pie and some open source software and read license plates)

[Ross A. Finlayson]

As long as the image that is basically a spiral sweep
or conical in a sense (not in the rods and cone sense
but all pulled into the largest nerve its bundle) is basically
as sufficient to return the signal as the raster, OK.

The software defined radio you mention is indeed quite
interesting, also for software defined antennae. (Or signals,
engineering.)

When you hear about neural nets, then you should know that "AI" was
invented since the 50's, and it's always been cheaper to have a
conceptual system known as "expert systems", then that, there
is the very powerful in "statistical inference", and, "neural nets"
are quite simple in form and operation and work on whatever sets
of data as a stimulus/reponse machine. I.e. "neural nets" don't
know "knowledge inference". It's it's much more efficient to
have a context and knowledge inference, but, it's much more
expert and demanding than "train on any old set of data".

The ontology and philogeny and cladistics for ... information
and information retrieval, related to something like knowledge
inference format or basically an encyclopedia, is basically
orthogonal to something like resource definition format, or
data points.

Statistical inference is its own matter, basically for a wide spectrum
as it were of model-matching besides all sorts usual simple test on
various distributions of data. Spectral analysis as you mention or
component analysis for example is again another example of where
gradient descent is very efficient, but not protection from worst case.


Cantor is a famous mathematician and for the uncountable, but this
is the 21st century and after Goedel and Cohen there's again for a
both renewal of the retro-classical that preceded it, and, for more real
mathematics of infinitesimals and infinities, that physics needs, that
starts with simple facts about Cantor space the binary case, sweep()
the counterexample a countable continuous domain, and all what follows
from my slates.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

You're the crank mate

[zelos...@gmail.com]

onsdag 23 mars 2022 kl. 13:14:28 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> > on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> > > FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> > >> It happens that WM formulated :
> > >>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> > >>>
> > >>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> > >>>> possible.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>> Completely correct.
> > >> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> > >> *representation* of each real number.
> > >
> > > Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> > > sequence where the digits are written.
> > No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
> So it is.
> > An associated sequence is
> > used to make the representation.
> But not completely, because there is no last digit. A completely representing sequence has an end signal.

Incorrect, this is not true in mathematics.

[Eram semper recta]

On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:23:59 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:14:28 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> > > on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> > > > FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> > > >> It happens that WM formulated :
> > > >>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> > > >>>> possible.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Completely correct.
> > > >> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> > > >> *representation* of each real number.
> > > >
> > > > Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> > > > sequence where the digits are written.
> > > No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
> > So it is.
> It's not even in the formula because a formula is not a number and a number is not a formula.
>
> number =/= formula
>
> I suppose if one bothers to ask why they have different names, the meaning might become clearer.
>
> A number is a name given to a measure that describes (not partially, not approximately, not with "3 dots") a magnitude or size.

Measure means *EXACT*. It does not mean a failed measure such as 0.333... or 3.14159... or any representation followed by "3 dots".


Dictionary definition of measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units (****).

Notice it says nothing about formula or 3 dots. Chuckle. This is why it is important for children to learn the language of instruction well because it affects their understanding negatively in every respect. This dismal incompetence and stupidity of the Church of Math Academia has resulted in delusions such as 1 = 0.999... or 1/3 = 0.333... or pi = 3.14159... when in fact NEITHER the magnitude NOR the measure known as pi actually exist. Pi is not a number but a rational approximation in a FAILED measure of ANY circle's periphery using its diameter as UNIT (****).

[Eram semper recta]

...and since there is no UNIT that measures the ratio circumference : diameter, it follows that pi as understood by mainstream math baboons cannot be number.

[Eram semper recta]

Indeed!

A *number* is a *name* given to a *measure* of a *magnitude* or size.

The magnitude in the case of the *realisation* of the failed measure of the CONSTANT pi which is the antecedent of the ratio circumference : diameter, that is circumference. If what my intellectual inferiors in the mainstream imagine to be true, then every circle circumference is Pi! Chuckle.

Historical Note: By convention of the Ancient Greeks (my brilliant ancestors), the antecedent is measured by the consequent IFF "quotientness" (πηλικότητα) is present.

Ο έχων νουν νοείν, νοείτω.

[Eram semper recta]

Ο νοών, νοείτω.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

onsdag 23 mars 2022 kl. 11:45:22 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 18:35:13 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > There is no permutation of the Xs in
> >
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > XOOO...
> > ...
> >
> > such that all positions are covered by Xs.
> >
> > If it were, it would imply, that in the sequence
> >
> > XOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> >
> > all Os could be covered by the X.
> > Therefore Cantor's notion of countability is trash.
> >
> The thing about such simple, clear arguments is that they are too complex for mainstream mathematics baboons.
> If you threw in a lot of bullshit and perhaps several pages of hand waving, you would probably stand a better chance.
>
> So fine, you're telling them there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion, but it's not complex enough. You have to give them something that uses their bullshit beliefs and turn it into a theatre of nonsense - then and only then, will they be dumbfounded beyond their usual inability to comprehend all the layers of excrement so as to "ooh and aah" incredulously at your revelations.

That is how logical systems work, they are valid until you show an internal contradiction. That is why you cannot say "There is nothing infinite" in mathematics because it is INDEPENDENT of reality so we can add that as an axiom and it works :)

[zelos...@gmail.com]

onsdag 23 mars 2022 kl. 16:23:59 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:14:28 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> > > on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> > > > FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> > > >> It happens that WM formulated :
> > > >>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> > > >>>> possible.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Completely correct.
> > > >> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> > > >> *representation* of each real number.
> > > >
> > > > Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> > > > sequence where the digits are written.
> > > No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
> > So it is.
> It's not even in the formula because a formula is not a number and a number is not a formula.
>
> number =/= formula
>
> I suppose if one bothers to ask why they have different names, the meaning might become clearer.
>
> A number is a name given to a measure that describes (not partially, not approximately, not with "3 dots") a magnitude or size.

That is your opinion and that is all it is, an opinion.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

torsdag 24 mars 2022 kl. 09:02:53 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 17:23:59 UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:14:28 UTC+2, WM wrote:
> > > FromTheRafters schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> > > > on 3/23/2022, WM supposed :
> > > > > FromTheRafters schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 16:46:10 UTC+1:
> > > > >> It happens that WM formulated :
> > > > >>> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 22. März 2022 um 09:18:18 UTC+1:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> **There is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion**
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> To claim otherwise, is equivalent to claiming an *infinite task* is
> > > > >>>> possible.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> No need to proceed past this point. End of discussion.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Completely correct.
> > > > >> But there *is* such a thing as an infinite decimal expansion
> > > > >> *representation* of each real number.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where? You may be confusing the formula creating every desired digit and the
> > > > > sequence where the digits are written.
> > > > No, the value, the number, is in the formula.
> > > So it is.
> > It's not even in the formula because a formula is not a number and a number is not a formula.
> >
> > number =/= formula
> >
> > I suppose if one bothers to ask why they have different names, the meaning might become clearer.
> >
> > A number is a name given to a measure that describes (not partially, not approximately, not with "3 dots") a magnitude or size.
> Measure means *EXACT*.

Your "measure" is entirely meaningless mathematically

>it does not mean a failed measure such as 0.333... or 3.14159... or any representation followed by "3 dots".

Given there is no meaning to your "measure" mathematically, it cannot be determined it is failed or not.

>
>
> Dictionary definition of measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units

A dictionary is descriptive of common usage, it does not define what things means, especially not in professional fields.

>
> Notice it says nothing about formula or 3 dots. Chuckle.

And? Again, it is not a mathematics book so what it says a word means is irrelevant. And no, your garbage is not mathematics.

>This is why it is important for children to learn the language of instruction well because it affects their understanding negatively in every respect.

You need to learn that there are different meanings in different contexts and what the common usage of somethign is is not the same as the professional in a field.

>This dismal incompetence and stupidity of the Church of Math Academia has resulted in delusions such as 1 = 0.999... or 1/3 = 0.333...
or pi = 3.14159...

All of which are provable so those are not "delusions", but you are delusional.

>when in fact NEITHER the magnitude NOR the measure known as pi actually exist.

Which means little to nothing given you cannot define it mathematically.

>Pi is not a number but a rational approximation in a FAILED measure of ANY circle's periphery using its diameter as UNIT (****).

So you claim but that is all it is, a claim by you.

[WM]

sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.

How would you know that without a formula?
What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?

Regards, WM

[WM]

Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 18:59:32 UTC+1:
> On 3/23/2022 8:14 AM, WM wrote:
> > FromTheRafters schrieb
> > am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
> >> An associated sequence is
> >> used to make the representation.
> >
> > But not completely, because there is no last digit.
> > A completely representing sequence has an end signal.
> Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
> represent in different ways.

Without an end signal and without a formula you don't know the number.
What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?

> For *finite digit sequences* it's enough that,
> for the operations "add one" and "divide by ten",
> each input has one and only one output.

But that output is unknown without a prescription.

>
> For each finite digit sequence,
> there is a finite sequence of those operations.
> For example, ".12" has
> |add one|add one|divide by ten|add one|divide by ten|

That is a formula!

>
> There is no step of the operation-sequence which
> does not have one and only one output. Including
> the last operation-step.

That is a formula! It describes a number or is a number. My claim is that without a formula you don't have a number.

> Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
> are the same in representing one and only one point.

Infinite digit sequences without a formula defining them are not describing numbers because they are not exsting. See my above example.

Regards, WM

[Gus Gassmann]

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 07:54:37 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> > All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
> How would you know that without a formula?

Because there is a frigging *THEOREM* for that, you fucking lunatic. (The case of repeating zeroes --- or nines --- at the end is included so as not to distinguish between terminating and non-terminating expansions.)

> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?

That is a completely different question, and you know it. So please fuck off.

[sergio]

On 3/24/2022 5:54 AM, WM wrote:
> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
>> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
>
> How would you know that without a formula?

try using google.

> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?

You have not specified if your number is a fraction or not.

Also, the way it is written means it is truncated at the ? mark.

which is this number 0.322322322322322322322000000000000....


Instead you name a fraction, and we'll give you the decimal representation.
[you can find online calculators that will do this for you]

>
> Regards, WM

[sergio]

On 3/24/2022 6:01 AM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 18:59:32 UTC+1:
>> On 3/23/2022 8:14 AM, WM wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters schrieb
>>> am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 12:34:28 UTC+1:
>>>> An associated sequence is
>>>> used to make the representation.
>>>
>>> But not completely, because there is no last digit.
>>> A completely representing sequence has an end signal.

what "end signal" ? (End Signal Ants)

>> Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
>> represent in different ways.
>
> Without an end signal and without a formula you don't know the number.
> What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?

? is not a digit. please fix your mistake

[zelos...@gmail.com]

None, it ended there you retard :)

[FromTheRafters]

sergio expressed precisely :

> On 3/24/2022 5:54 AM, WM wrote:
>> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
>>> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
>>
>> How would you know that without a formula?
>
> try using google.
>
>> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
>
> You have not specified if your number is a fraction or not.

Its integer part is zero, so the rest is the fractional part. Is it
rational or not is a separate question. Since he doesn't include the
dots, it probably tails off with repeating zeroes which makes it
rational.

> Also, the way it is written means it is truncated at the ? mark.
>
> which is this number 0.322322322322322322322000000000000....

Yes, he abuses notation yet again but it makes no difference since
endlessly repeated sequences which aren't zeroes or nines also indicate
rationals in CDE.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Would you instead just please tell us more about the p-adic integers?

I know at least it's something interesting that in the past you talked
about, where this "mental pathologies of troll-cranks in the mathematical"
is already too well explored and even trite. And distasteful.

Who was that again who coined the term? What are these "infinite" "numbers"?

Thanks FTR -

[sergio]

Agree

[FromTheRafters]

Ross A. Finlayson presented the following explanation :

IIRC it was Chris Thomasson refering to 'non-terminating' sequences of
fractional part digits as 'infinite numbers' since there is no end to
their CDE. As you know, there is actually no end to the others either
-- we just call them terminating when they tail off to all nines or all
zeroes.

[sergio]

(the all nines all 0s are still repeating decimals, a 9 or a 0)





following WMs math we are required to write down all 0's

1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(add on infinite # of 0's here)

to arrive at his "defined" number requirement. (how do you flash, beep, or tap out a 0?)

[FredJeffries]

You must remember that in our Professor's kingdom, zero is NOT an natural number. (Neither is the empty set a set)

Therefore, strings like 47.32870643 are NOT valid representations of real numbers.

Which leads us to the result that ten (10) must be the first dark (Drahk) natural number.

[sergio]

On 3/24/2022 11:41 AM, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 9:21:24 AM UTC-7, sergio wrote:
>> On 3/24/2022 9:52 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>> As you know, there is actually no end to the others either -- we just call them terminating when they tail off to all nines or all zeroes.
>> (the all nines all 0s are still repeating decimals, a 9 or a 0)
>>
>>
>> following WMs math we are required to write down all 0's
>>
>> 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(add on infinite # of 0's here)
>>
>> to arrive at his "defined" number requirement. (how do you flash, beep, or tap out a 0?)
>
> You must remember that in our Professor's kingdom, zero is NOT an natural number. (Neither is the empty set a set)
>
> Therefore, strings like 47.32870643 are NOT valid representations of real numbers.

WM must therefore purge the natural numbers of its infestation of 0's thusly

10 => 1x
20 => 2x

300 => 3xx

4050290 => 4x5x29x

I will let him continue on the naturals at his own natural speed

47.32870643 => 47.3287x643

>
> Which leads us to the result that ten (10) must be the first dark (Drahk) natural number.

Obviously, It is said, "He who sayith no zero, is not Drahk-ish"

[Takabe Matsumura]

WM wrote:

>> Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences represent in
>> different ways.
>
> Without an end signal and without a formula you don't know the number.
> What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?

Garbage Fake News Website *‘The Hill’* Continues to Push Trump-Russia Lie
— Defends Biden Crime Family on Millions Made in Ukrainian Pay-for-Play
Schemes
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/garbage-fake-news-website-hill-
continues-push-trump-russia-lie-defends-biden-crime-family-millions-made-
ukrainian-pay-play-schemes/

[Takabe Matsumura]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> I think there is a difference between the sequences in binary, and,
> sequences in trinary or higher radix. Not just a difference in the
> labels, actually there are differences in the spaces.

It is. Will Russia Backstop The Ruble With Gold?
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/russia-will-backstop-ruble-gold

The backstopping of the Ruble with gold can come in many forms and doesn’t
have to be a direct peg from the Ruble to gold - it can include accepting
payment for oil in gold. So "western" capitalist *fake_money* getting gas
and oil *for_free* finally is stopped.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Stevin, then, circa 1600. Cf. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ultrametric.html

Metrizing countable ultrafilters are a lot like sweep()
bolted way on top of topology instead of right centrally
where it belongs: i.e. it still doesn't exactly agree up there
what all it says it builds form. (Or modern mathematics
and set theory.)

[Takabe Matsumura]

zelos...@gmail.com wrote:

>> or pi = 3.14159...
>
> All of which are provable so those are not "delusions", but you are
> delusional.

quote less, you fucking moron. They want to "stop" the war. Nato countries sending heavy military crap to a naze shithole country not member of, hence not alleged to the capitalist *fake_money* doctrine.

Germany to send 2000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, UK to supply 6000 missiles
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/03/24/679064/Ukraine-Germany-anti-tank-weapon-

[sergio]

interesting link!

[Jim Burns]

On 3/24/2022 7:01 AM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb
> am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 18:59:32 UTC+1:

>> Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
>> are the same in representing one and only one point.
>
> Infinite digit sequences without a formula defining them
> are not describing numbers because they are not exsting.

How to describe an infinite digit sequence,
and then take reliable steps claim-to-claim
from the description.

⟨ ⟨1,d[1]⟩, ⟨2,d[2]⟩, ⟨3,d[3]⟩, ... ⟩
is a collection of ordered pairs ⟨j,d[j]⟩ such that,

for each second end j of a collection ⟨1,...,j⟩ with
a counting-order which begins at 1,
one and only one pair ⟨j,d[j]⟩ is in
⟨ ⟨1,d[1]⟩, ⟨2,d[2]⟩, ⟨3,d[3]⟩, ... ⟩

and,
for each pair ⟨j,d[j]⟩ in
⟨ ⟨1,d[1]⟩, ⟨2,d[2]⟩, ⟨3,d[3]⟩, ... ⟩
its first component j is the second end of
a collection ⟨1,...,j⟩ with a counting-ordered which
begins at 1, and
its second component d[j] is in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9},

We know that's true of an infinite digit sequence
without needing to choose which infinite digit sequence
it refers to.

We know enough, there, that we know that there is
one and only one point in all the intervals represented
by all the finite initial segments of that infinite
digit sequence.

We define that point to be the one and only one point
which that infinite digit sequence represents.
Still without choosing which infinite digit sequence
the description refers to.

> See my above example.

I guess you mean this:

> What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?

0.448448448448 isn't an infinite digit sequence.

[Takabe Matsumura]

sergio wrote:

> You are unable to understand Cantors Enumeration, which is by using
> simple indexing, one can convert a matrix into a sequence.
> Each photo you look at today has been serialized into a sequence and
> then back into a matrix at least once.
> Cantor is just a lot smarter than you are.

Greg Reese: The Nazification of the West
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MgJVp4w122tw/

*_"the deadly power of organized crime"_*

[sergio]

On 3/23/2022 6:20 AM, WM wrote:

> Eram semper recta schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 11:45:22 UTC+1:
>
>> True story:
>> I watched a video where a professor purposely gave a speech that was full of garbage and although no one understood, all of them clapped in earnest. After the speech, one of the audience approached and informed him that he couldn't understand anything and that nothing made sense. The professor then informed him that he purposely spoke garbage to see if any of the other faculty members would notice as he was of the opinion that most of them never listen in any case.
>

> I experienced the same with MathOverflow Cranks:
> https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Material/big%20picture%20-%20Checking%20the%20intelligence%20of%20MO-users%20-%20MathOverflow.html
>
> Regards, WM


WM is only looking for views. typical troll.

on mathoverflow

WM:
"Inspired by this question I made an experiment.

I have often participated here with serious concerns about set theory. All my questions and answers have been downvote and deleted. But when I posted
the following text, I got 5 upvotes, and the text remained over two months until today and gathered 300 views."

[Eram semper recta]

While you are correct in saying that one can only realise a repeated pattern from a process (formula or method), you are wrong to say that without it you don't have a number.

Repeating radix representations are *unremarkable* (as they are a property of numbers whose MEASURE is not possible in certain radix or positional systems) but they most definitely are a result of ATTEMPTING to measure a NUMBER that cannot be measured in certain radix systems. 1/3 is a very well-formed number. However, there is no formula here. 1/3 is a measure of a ratio. Here are just a few UNEQUAL ratios whose measure is 1/3:

_ : _ _ _
_ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
etc.

If you try to measure 1/3 in radix 10, then you fail because the NUMBER 1/3 cannot be measured using the decimal position system.

The term "rational" should never appear before "number" because rationality is implied by number and vice-versa.

So to summarise, number =/= formula. It is _very important_ to use correct words and definitions. Number and Formula are NOT synonyms, not ever!

> > Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
> > are the same in representing one and only one point.
> Infinite digit sequences without a formula defining them are not describing numbers because they are not exsting. See my above example.

Your example proves nothing. It only states the obvious, that is, that an infinite measure is not possible. Of course to the fools in the mainstream, this is ignored in favour of their delusional beliefs that are provably contradictory in so many ways even as you yourself have discovered.

The proof that there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion is a result of the fact that a measure by definition is "complete", not approximate, not partial, not followed by 3 dots, but COMPLETE.

The CONSTANT known as Pi is an attempt to measure a ratio whose antecedent is a circle's circumference and whose consequent is its diameter. Any attempt to measure c:d results in a NUMBER which is an approximation, in other words, Pi as a number does NOT exist. It does not exist as a magnitude either because every unique circle has a circumference of different length. It's the attempted measure in every case that reveals the CONSTANT known as Pi.

Yes, I do know better! You would do well to study what I tell you because I am much smarter than you or anyone else.

>
> Regards, WM

[zelos...@gmail.com]

get away from here you Russian idiot.

[Ιωάννης Γαβριήλ]

In geometry, the above ratios are in proportion but not equal. In algebra, we are concerned only with their measure, that is, the abstract unit which assumes ALL the properties of the consequent from geometry, but disregards the size of the consequent and that is why it is called an "abstract unit".

[zelos...@gmail.com]

All irrelevant to mathematics. Are you really so primitive like a neanderthal that you think you have to do physical measurements?

>
> If you try to measure 1/3 in radix 10, then you fail because the NUMBER 1/3 cannot be measured using the decimal position system.
>
> The term "rational" should never appear before "number" because rationality is implied by number and vice-versa.
>
> So to summarise, number =/= formula. It is _very important_ to use correct words and definitions. Number and Formula are NOT synonyms, not ever!
> > > Finite digit sequences and infinite digit sequences
> > > are the same in representing one and only one point.
> > Infinite digit sequences without a formula defining them are not describing numbers because they are not exsting. See my above example.
> Your example proves nothing. It only states the obvious, that is, that an infinite measure is not possible. Of course to the fools in the mainstream, this is ignored in favour of their delusional beliefs that are provably contradictory in so many ways even as you yourself have discovered.
>
> The proof that there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion is a result of the fact that a measure by definition is "complete", not approximate, not partial, not followed by 3 dots, but COMPLETE.

Here you make the claim that complete = finite, that has not been established but is assumed by you.

>
> The CONSTANT known as Pi is an attempt to measure a ratio whose antecedent is a circle's circumference and whose consequent is its diameter. Any attempt to measure c:d results in a NUMBER which is an approximation, in other words, Pi as a number does NOT exist. It does not exist as a magnitude either because every unique circle has a circumference of different length. It's the attempted measure in every case that reveals the CONSTANT known as Pi.
>
> Yes, I do know better! You would do well to study what I tell you because I am much smarter than you or anyone else.

You really do not know better, you are one hell of a stupid boy :)

>
> >
> > Regards, WM

[WM]

Eram semper recta schrieb am Freitag, 25. März 2022 um 06:58:00 UTC+1:

> While you are correct in saying that one can only realise a repeated pattern from a process (formula or method), you are wrong to say that without it you don't have a number.

No. A decimal representation that cannot be described does not bring a number to your mind. But that is the task of a decimal representation. As you know there is no infinite decimal representation without a formula prescribing every digit.

Regards, WM

[WM]

horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 13:59:56 UTC+1:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 07:54:37 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> > > All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
> > How would you know that without a formula?
> Because there is a frigging *THEOREM*

I did not ask for that. I asked: How could you know that my example is continued by 322?

> > What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
> That is a completely different question,

That is a question to be answered by those who believe in infinite decimal representations without generating formulae.

Regards, WM

[WM]

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 14:49:21 UTC+1:
> torsdag 24 mars 2022 kl. 11:54:37 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> > sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> > > All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
> > How would you know that without a formula?
> > What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?

> None, it ended

Every written sequence necessarily ends somewhere. But those who believe that infinite sequences could exist without generating formula should know how to continue. What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322 in an infinite sequence?

Regards, WM

[WM]

Jim Burns schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 21:20:48 UTC+1:

> We know enough, there, that we know that there is
> one and only one point in all the intervals represented
> by all the finite initial segments of that infinite
> digit sequence.

Again you forget the dark realm. At definable step number n there is always an interval described. The limit would be a point. But you cannot know the limit from the sequence alone.

> > See my above example.
>
> I guess you mean this:
> > What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?
> 0.448448448448 isn't an infinite digit sequence.

It is, but I could not write all its digits. So I ceased, hoping you could continue without formula (or you would understand that this is impossible).

Regards, WM

[Gus Gassmann]

On Friday, 25 March 2022 at 08:12:02 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 13:59:56 UTC+1:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 07:54:37 UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
> > > > All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
> > > How would you know that without a formula?
> > Because there is a frigging *THEOREM*
> I did not ask for that. I asked: How could you know that my example is continued by 322?

Fucking liar. You asked two questions that are independent of each other and now pretend they are related. *FUCK YOU*!

> > > What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
> > That is a completely different question,
> That is a question to be answered by those who believe in infinite decimal representations without generating formulae.

It is *NOT*, you lying, fucking piece of shit! You asked how one knows that fractions have an eventually repeating decimal expansion. The answer is "Yes", and it relies on a simple *THEOREM*. That you pretend you don't know that marks you as a lying prick and an asshole. But *THEN*, you miserable son of a bitch, you changed the subject by asking for the continuation of a digit string without telling the reader whether the number was even supposed to be rational or not. Of *COURSE* the reader cannot answer. That is a classic "bait-and-switch". You deliberately cheated, and I was calling you out on that. I also asked you to *FUCK OFF*, and I repeat that request.

[FromTheRafters]

It happens that WM formulated :

0.322322322322322322321(9)...

or

0.322322322322322322322(0)...

You probably meant

0.(322)...

but it is hard to tell what you are 'thinking'.

[sergio]

On 3/25/2022 6:11 AM, WM wrote:
> horand....@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 13:59:56 UTC+1:
>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 07:54:37 UTC-3, WM wrote:
>>> sergio schrieb am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022 um 15:13:57 UTC+1:
>>>> All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.
>>> How would you know that without a formula?
>> Because there is a frigging *THEOREM*
>
> I did not ask for that. I asked: How could you know that my example is continued by 322?

you did NOT asked that.

>
>>> What is the next digit following upon 0.322322322322322322322?
>> That is a completely different question,
>

> That is a question to be answered by bla bla....

Wrong. You can not answer it anyway.


>
> Regards, WM


FACT. All fractions have repeating decimal patterns.

[sergio]

1. that is not an infinite sequence.

2. the next number in above is 0, since you did not specify other criteria


3. if you add the three dots ... then it would be 322 repeating (as mitch would say)


4. You are unfamiliar with common math nomenclature too.


>
> Regards, WM


4 mistakes in one post, you troll, + only concerned about the # of views, and not the math.

[sergio]

On 3/25/2022 6:19 AM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb am Donnerstag, 24. März 2022 um 21:20:48 UTC+1:
>
>> We know enough, there, that we know that there is
>> one and only one point in all the intervals represented
>> by all the finite initial segments of that infinite
>> digit sequence.
>
> Again you forget the dark realm.

the dark realm exists only in your mind.

bla bla...

>
>>> See my above example.
>>
>> I guess you mean this:
>>> What is the next digit in 0.448448448448?
>> 0.448448448448 isn't an infinite digit sequence.
>
> It is,

Liar, it is not.

> but I could not write all its digits.

you FAILED to write it using common math nomenclature to indicate it is an infinite series, a fatal mistake, which shows you 100% troll.


> So I ceased,

You must cease all math, you are no good at it.

> hoping you could continue without formula (or you would understand that this is impossible).

you waste time.

>
> Regards, WM

[sergio]

Wrong, you're out of math.


>
> Regards, WM