What is mathematical continuity?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The quantity continuum; from first quantity or the infinitely small
through ever real and transcendental quantity in between to.999 repeating
and the next quantity to it of 1.

There is an infinite string of infinitely small quantity
together. That builds .999 repeating magnitude. Add the
last quantity and you get 1.

God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Mathedman]

On 1/13/2019 7:50 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> The quantity continuum; from first quantity or the infinitely small
> through ever real and transcendental quantity in between to.999 repeating
> and the next quantity to it of 1.

This is gibberish. "Infinitely small" is a senseless statement!

>
> There is an infinite string of infinitely small quantity
> together. That builds .999 repeating magnitude. Add the
> last quantity and you get 1.

HUH? This makes nom sense!
>
> God creates gravity.

Whose god?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

[Jew Lover]

On Sunday, 13 January 2019 21:10:35 UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> The quantity continuum; from first quantity or the infinitely small
> through ever real and transcendental quantity in between to.999 repeating
> and the next quantity to it of 1.
>
> There is an infinite string of infinitely small quantity
> together. That builds .999 repeating magnitude. Add the
> last quantity and you get 1.

There is no last quantity. But do not be ashamed because S = Lim S assumes that such a last quantity can be determined resulting in the "infinite sum". Praise be to the Lord! Chuckle.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

I believe the last quantity before 1 is .999 repeating.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:08:36 AM UTC-8, Mathedman wrote:
> On 1/13/2019 7:50 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The quantity continuum; from first quantity or the infinitely small
> > through ever real and transcendental quantity in between to.999 repeating
> > and the next quantity to it of 1.
>
> This is gibberish. "Infinitely small" is a senseless statement!

It comes from inverse infinity.

> >
> > There is an infinite string of infinitely small quantity
> > together. That builds .999 repeating magnitude. Add the
> > last quantity and you get 1.
>
> HUH? This makes nom sense!

You can build every magnitude by the fundamental 1/unlimited
quantity.

Mitchell Raemsch

> >
> > God creates gravity.
>
> Whose god?

God is God.

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

As an atheist I take offense. Where in the bible, torah, or the koran is gravity a part of the conversation? Did the apple drop on Adam's head? I don't think so. Perhaps like Jefferson you are up for an edit, or perhaps you meant some other god than the Abrahamic one, whose factions war to this day desperate to propagate their failed belief system. Exclusivity is all their problem.

Universality is ours. QGers haven't gotten it yet have they? Claims of emergent spacetime are shriveling on their vine. QMers can't seem to get their computer going. Claims that their theory does not make sense to anyone hold up extremely well right alongside particle/wave duality. An entire generation is nodding their heads to this stuff looking for A's so as to have a scientific future, for without this level of mimicry the system will collapse.

Religion, science fiction, and possibly 21st century science are in the same boat. Humans have a tough time finding the truth, and even when it comes along it can be difficult to recognize. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.

The contra to continuum is discrete. If it isn't continuous then it is discrete. If it isn't discrete it is continuous. There may be many forms of each and interestingly there are modulo forms of each. Angle may be the answer. If all of our distances are actually angles (infinitessimal) then we are on a 4D shell, constrained with no access to the origin. Whether the shell is growing or we are shrinking I would think is an option. Maybe there is a way to measure old light; light that has gone more than once around the system. If stability is a standing wave then we're going to need this shell thing. If rotation is a sufficient basis then we can toss the real line aside and Euclidean geometry with it. Yes we recover them locally, but with this caveat.

[Zelos Malum]

and what is your "smallest" unit divided by two?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Ah ha!

[Bill]

The OP seems clueless mathematical continuity. But to be fair, he
used a question mark in the name of his thread. Hint: Open up a
calculus book to get started.

Question: I see it over and over here. Why do people who are the
most clueless about things write as if they are an authority?

[bassam king karzeddin]

As a common fact about real numbers, we may consider any real sensible number, say randomly the number 5

Then,
Q: What is the greatest real number that is strictly less than 5?
A: It doesn't exist

Q: What is the least real number that is strictly greater than 5?
A: It doesn't exist

Therefore, real numbers are discrete numbers and thus, continuity is false a belief among mathematicians, FOR SURE

The proof was repeated and completed, FOR SURE

BKK

[Ross A. Finlayson]

For what?

[Zelos Malum]

Non-sequitor, the fact tehre is no least greater number nor greatest lesser number in no way disproves a continuity of real numbers.

[bassam king karzeddin]

For sure
BKK

[Bill]

FYI, The notion of continuity has nothing to do with whether a
metric space X, such as R, is discrete or not. What you are not
thinking about is "completeness"--about which you haven't a clue...

[bassam king karzeddin]

So, let us see (ZMT), how does your designed continuity work?

Or better say, parrot what do you memorize about it from your many holy books to show you how can we immediately invalidate it, and just before your own eyes, FOR SURE
BKK

[Ross A. Finlayson]

The point is that in mathematics
one only gives something up as
for the result of something else.

Then, BKK's "fer sure" is just another
some non-logical axiom applied to the
objects of the numbers or here methods
upon them as result for example in some
simple tractable closed forms and here
for example simple "rational" numbers.

He can find a lot of support for that
since Euclid for example.

However, mathematics writ large has quite
well explored real-valued number systems
for some time, so, BKK's "for sure, for what"
is a usual ostrich's. (As apocryphally
sticks its head in the sand to avoid
the perception of predators.)

"Mathematical continuity" is often and
usually frame in terms of "real-valued
number systems", often per Hardy as both
geometric as of the point-like in lines,
and for example the complete ordered field
with a usual modern curriculum's development
in abstract algebra supporting at least pretty
much in entirety foundations for the integral
calculus.

Then for example then for this "field continuity",
theorists also look to the points in a line
and (more than) the density of rationals besides
(more than) the limits of their series.

Formally, that is....

[bassam king karzeddin]

@ Bill

Definitely, my proof isn't interesting FOR SURE

But imagine if the same result was proved by a very well-known reputable mathematician and was published in a very reputable Journal from a very reputable University and from a reputable country, etc, say in 500 OR 1000 pages with so many references to many mathematicians still in power and few more tons of older references, then most likely you would like the same result given to you freely here, and probably you would buy it and not necessarily to read more than a few pages like 10 pages say

This is generally the very deep physiology of human creatures reactions to BIG things, no wonder!

But most likely you and everyone else would never notice that the DNA of the basic mathematics backbone is counting with NUMBERS, that is the whole mathematics about, where it started intuitively and naturally by the Natural numbers that are DISCRETE numbers, where its DNA would never get vanished no matter however you enlarge your real number line or stretch it even to an invisible size, FOR SURE
Get it, it is too easy Bill
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

This is the mathematical non-continiouty, for sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 5:10:35 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Is continuity is still a problem for alleged genius mathematicians? wonder!
BKK

[Zelos Malum]

Nope

[bassam king karzeddin]

Qontiniouty is a quite funny concept since natural numbers aren't, so can the real numbers be continuous any more? no wonder!
BKK

[Zelos Malum]

a set isn't continuous, only functions can be.

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 5:10:35 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

[Zelos Malum]

Reposting garbage is still garbage

[bassam karzeddin]

No continuity of real existing numbers is well-established, FOR SURE

BKK

[Basil Jet]

It actually proves the continuity of real numbers.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Swoone - 2018 - Handcuffed Heart

[FromTheRafters]

Basil Jet used his or her keyboard to write :

Indeed. Further reading for our local mathematics deniers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum

[Bassam Karzeddin]

[Bassam Karzeddin]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:30:40 AM UTC+3, Bassam Karzeddin wrote: