On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:25:07 PM UTC+3,
burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> I never defined D as such, where do you read this?
> The sequence D_n goes on and on, never ends, there
> is no finally. And D is the least upper bound, a new
but the whole issue that there is no least upper bound,
as if you are trying to define the greatest number that is less than say one, of course does not exist
>
> object. I wrote this already, namely:
>
> D_n =< D (upper bound)
Please realize that your assumed D, is mainly conceptual (in mind only), not attainable (impossible), since endless, for sure, thus an obvious illusion, see the definition of an illusion please
>
> D_n =/= D (new object)
Thus D = NOTHINGNESS
>
> Or together:
>
> D_n < D
D_n is only rational, but D is nothingness, then they are not comparable
>
> Since D is a new object its not one of the D_n, and
> there is also no final D_n, since the sequence D_1, D_2,
> ... goes on and on. And always D_n =/= D.
>
So, this is actually the definition of an illusion (for sure)
> Please don't put words in my mouth I never said. Could
I am not putting words in your mouth, but in your skull
> you be more careful when posting. Dont post nonsense.
> The following I never said:
I always post common sense
>
> - I never said there is a final D_oo among the D_n.
The mathematics you follow says so and so clearly
Even if you do not say so, but the meaning is the same
>
> - Consequently I never said D_oo = D, how should I say that?
> I cannot say that if I don't define a final D_oo.
Nobody can define D at any other cases, how can a non existence be brought to real existence?
>
> - The notation lim n->oo D_n = D, doesn't mean D_oo = D.
> The notation means the following:
Yes, even at that (unattainable state of mind), D_oo =/= D, and D =/= TREE,
OR D =/= ELEPHANT OR D =/= Dinosaur, and (for sure)
>
> a) D_n < D, and
>
> b) for each D' (D_n < D' implies D =< D').
Most likely at the paradise of mythematickers only
>
> The notation does say there is a final D_oo, where did
> you get that from? You are old enough to get the correct
> definition from internet of lim n->oo for a sequence.
All those integer demonstrations can not convince a professional mathematicians (for sure)
And all your argument were just to divert the INTEGER proof,
So, refute the provided proof if you or anybody else can, instead of wasting time on what you said, or what I said
> Am Montag, 27. Februar 2017 19:57:49 UTC+1 schrieb bassam king karzeddin:
> > your D finally at infinity, thus it is a ratio of two integers where each integer consists of infinite sequence of digits, which DOES NOT EXIST,
It does not matter what do you or anybody else say, to the obvious truthness of fiction numbers adopted in mathematics
Also it does not matter going in the details of so alleged too advanced mathematics such as SH*T theory to prove the mathematical number 2^(1/3)
Also it does not matter to use many concepts to be finally replaced with the greatest mathematical notation of so simple common sense (=), such notations (approaching fast or approaching fast, limits, Newton's approximation, famous cuts,infinity, intermediate value theorem, ..., etc), all those terms can not substitute the (=) sign, for sure,
Diophantine equation are exact,
The proofs are actually so many, the simplest and more than sufficient one is associating a number with infinity, where infinity it self is not a number, therefore any number associated with it is definitely not a number
And since infinity is not a number by definition, then it is greater than any number (too wonderful definition),
infinity Not a number but greater than any number, (toooooo funnnnnnny)
Even a layperson would keep laughing upon the top mathematicians, (of course I EXCLUDE YOU),
BK