I analyzed 10 million digits of SQRT(2)

[Vincent Granville]

Did I find any interesting patterns? Want to know the tests and data that I used? Or the exact formula to compute each digit of SQRT(2)separately? You can read the results of my research here: https://dsc.news/2J4CygV

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:46:14 AM UTC+3, Vincent Granville wrote:
> Did I find any interesting patterns? Want to know the tests and data that I used? Or the exact formula to compute each digit of SQRT(2)separately? You can read the results of my research here: https://dsc.news/2J4CygV

Those many significant digits or terms aren't at all the digits of sqrt(2), but they are only few digits for the greatest rational number that is strictly and forever less than sqrt(2), which of course doesn't exist at all in any imaginable reality or on the real number line (except of course in human minds that usually conceive so many fictional matters as merely as pure legendary beliefs)

But Sqrt(2) is distinct irrational number since it represent physically and exactly a unique existing and distinct distance as a diagonal of a square with unity side

All those many modern and big fallacies in our current mathematics had been well-refuted in my posts, for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
April 1st, 2018

**Note: this isn't an April fool day**

[bassam king karzeddin]

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:46:14 AM UTC+3, Vincent Granville wrote:

> Did I find any interesting patterns? Want to know the tests and data that I used? Or the exact formula to compute each digit of SQRT(2)separately? You can read the results of my research here: https://dsc.news/2J4CygV

But so, unfortunately, those 10 million digits don't strictly belong to sqrt(2) but only a comparison with it hopelessly, this is usually called the *art fart of hopeless approximation* since there is no end to it

Where the best about sqrt(2) is only the diagonal of a square with unity side where also its best approximations in rational numbers never exist FOR SURE
But it is still fun and interesting especially if you can derive prime numbers out of it, sure
BKK

[bassam king karzeddin]

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:46:14 AM UTC+3, Vincent Granville wrote:

> Did I find any interesting patterns? Want to know the tests and data that I used? Or the exact formula to compute each digit of SQRT(2)separately? You can read the results of my research here: https://dsc.news/2J4CygV

When Sqrt(2) was geometrically discovered *existing* a few thousands of years back and was proved not to be any rational number as being the distance diagonal of a square of unity side, and its endless decimal approximation was never a related issue

But how people later and up to date think wrongly that it's progressive endless digital approximation is the real issue of sqrt(2), wonder!

In which century this mixup did happen?

And can that be corrected again in the people's minds? wonder!

It seems to me that they are searching for that (non-existing) largest rational number that is strictly less than sqrt(2), even though they know in advance that it never exists since rationals are *discrete* numbers, sure

I mean, who mocked up the people's innocent minds into this silly game? wonder!

BKK

[Jew Lover]

On Sunday, 7 July 2019 08:58:35 UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:46:14 AM UTC+3, Vincent Granville wrote:
> > Did I find any interesting patterns? Want to know the tests and data that I used? Or the exact formula to compute each digit of SQRT(2)separately? You can read the results of my research here: https://dsc.news/2J4CygV
>
> When Sqrt(2) was geometrically discovered *existing* a few thousands of years back and was proved not to be any rational number as being the distance diagonal of a square of unity side, and its endless decimal approximation was never a related issue

Right! The Ancient Greeks (unlike their stupid modern Greek children!) knew sqrt(2) was a magnitude without measure. For this reason, they called it άλογος μέγεθος which means a magnitude without measure or simply *incommensurable*.

[bassam king karzeddin]

But the case with the cube root of two or even *Pi* itself, is even much worse, where no theorem or no proof was historically anywhere to show the existence of those alleged real number, it was something like a skilled carpenter can make a box with a volume of two units, or can draw a heptagon to very convenient way for a layperson, where then mathematicians had assumed those numbers or mathematical objects as truly existing, and later developed thousands of numerical methods to arrive at them and exactly at their alleged existing infinity, but the fact remains obvious that a cube with any existing side distance number is impossible to be exactly doubled and unlike the previous case of doubling the square with any *existing* distance number sides, where here 2^{1/3) isn't any existing distance and hence not any existing number on the real line number, where this only explains Wantzel's proof of impossibility of constructing such mathematical objects despite not seeing clearly by him, which makes his proof in fact not a proof

And that decimal representation is only a rational approximation to something we may need but exists only in mind and never in any reality

And if assume it's endless, then that decimal representation becomes undefined and non-existing

And the case with circle mind deception is indeed the worst of all since they convince you (as per Wikipedia and alike sources) that when you round a visible circle along a straight line than the point of start after a full revolution must finish a distance of full circle (2*pi) angle, and simply the layperson believes this silly trick of mind deception since she/he actually see the circle just before his own eyes

But, did they try to read exactly how much of known *pi* number they can read by their own limited ability of visibility for their eyes? Wonder!

They hardly can read 3 correct digits at most, where if they want to see more, then they have to enlarge the circle indefinitely, mentioning and assuring that whatever they can read of that alleged real number *pi* is actually a complete property of a regular polygon and wrongly thought for a circle for the extreme difficulty of recognizing the truth, where then it becomes almost impossible to see with sophisticated equipment that only regular polygon that yields only the first correct hundred digits of so-called *pi* in your modern mathematics

Then where is that regular polygon (still not a circle) that would give you the first 31 trillion digits of pi? wonder!

Oops, even that would require more than the universe size to read for sure

So, what about the circle in our original search?
It is there in the sky, or better say in a so peculiar paradise for higher level fools that were never discovered before, sure
So like with its number in mind which is a non-existing number FOR SURE

Those new issues must be reviewed and taught correctly in all schools on earth just to prevent more innocent people from falling drastically in a very tricky and sweet but fake paradise like before, sure
BKK

[j4n bur53]

It still has an infinite decimal expansion. Since
an infinite decimal expansion need not be a rational number,
so it can also cover irrational numbers.

sqrt(2) = 1.414213562373095048801688724209
698078569671875376948073176679
737990732478462107038850387534
32764157273501384623091...

Homework: Find a spigot algorithm for sqrt(2).

[bassam king karzeddin]

And at which a number of digits suddenly your decimal representation becomes an irrational number? wonder!

Or easier for you

What is your largest **FINITE** natural number?

Why don't let AP teaches you this too easy lessons for sure?
BKK

[j4n bur53]

Well you can use Euler, how JG sees it, to define
the value of an infinite sum. Just remember S=Lim S.
So in JGs lingo, the infinite sum is the limit of

the infinite sum. Which is nonsense, since the infinite
sum is the limit of the sequence of the partial sums.
But in JGs eays he sees it S=Lim S.

Doesn't matter, the outcome is the same, namely
that the value is determined by a limit. So you
don't have a particular partial sum which

makes it to the infinite sum, the in infinite sum
is the limit of all patial sums.

Didn't you know that? JG is talking all the time
about it, he is obsessed with S=Lim S. You can
just apply his S=Lim S to get the desired result.

[bassam karzeddin]

[bassam karzeddin]

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:46:14 AM UTC+3, Vincent Granville wrote:

> Did I find any interesting patterns? Want to know the tests and data that I used? Or the exact formula to compute each digit of SQRT(2)separately? You can read the results of my research here: https://dsc.news/2J4CygV

Sqrt2 itself in its surd form is an existing true irrational number, whereas its endless decimal rational representation isn't any existing real number (even if you are able to discover the pattern of how digits or terms are running)

Simple because this is also not a mber (0.999...), but the greatest ratio of two successive (non-existing ) integers!
Where many irrefutable proofs were publically published on sci.math math by myself & few members

We also know that a big intellectual war is going online between official & public science in mathematics strictly

BKK