/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12603198
The vagus conjecture is rooted in evil.

The stupidity of everything this person wrote is described as follows: they concede that the Latin alphabet is a set of predefined abstract characters with which they are already familiar, and they concede that English words are abstract objects assembled from the elements of the Latin alphabet such the detractor can understand what "words" mean, but then for everything else, they pretend like they have no foreknowledge of any of it. Tell me, shitcunt: since I have not defined the Latin alphabet or the English language, how are you able to understand anything at all? Did you not get bogged down in Section 1? How is the first thing you didn't understand in Section 2 when Section 1 was overflowing English words and Latin characters, none of which I have defined anywhere?

>>12100911
>Def 2.1.1
Like a Hausdorff space, the Euclidean metric is a predefined object. If you are not familiar with the identity of that object, this paper is probably going to be too hard for you.

>they can't be real numbers, because you haven't defined them yet.
That is not true. One often employs statements in the form, "X is something about horses and horseshoes where a horse is an animal and horseshoes are things you nail to its feet." It is perfectly fine to say what horses and horseshoes are after they are introduced. You are stupid and your attempt to criticize me reflects your stupidity.

>what is "cut in a line"?
The condition generated by the identity of x as a cut in a line is given in the definition.

>unfortunately since the term "cut" is not explained
It is "defined" in Def 2.1.4.

>what are natural numbers for you?
Another predefined object whose standard definition I employ

>since you defined real number line "topologically"
I didn't

>but what is 1/x for a cut x?
The quotient of two numbers in the neighborhood of the origin is predefined. one is such a number and x is such a number on its approach to zero.

>>9937801
You have to be a lot more clear about what you mean by "my system." I didn't need "hypercomplex analysis" to get this result about sine and cosine. I only used extended complex analysis. Except for pic related, nothing from "my system" goes into the proof. Since I know what cos(x) has to be at infinity, I deduced that the purely real, non-extended analysis converge to the extended value. So for present purposes, my system is pic related, not the hat, which I only suggested in this thread as a way to remember the correct order of operations regarding the absorptive properties of infinity. However, if you think about hat one and hat infinity as the basis of a 2D array, then it is obvious why you can't put array-valued quantities inside the cosine. You need to use a projection operator on the hypercomplex hat number to extract a real or extended real number that can go in the cosine.

When you ask, "Is infinity hat one = hat infinity?," that can only refer to the extended real case. Since we aim to go beyond infinity in the transfinite hypercomplex analysis, and we want to introduce a new feature, I say that infinity hat one = hat infinity.
> infinity hat one = hat infinity.

>>9888935
>infinity does not equal zero
define
y+=infinity-y

has the property that a point
y=0

is the same point as
y+=infinity

and vice versa

Thinking it up for the first time is harder that replicating it. I know plenty of people, myself included, have looked back at things like Maxwell's laws, or whatever, and said, "I would have gotten that." However, most of those people are severely deluded Dunning-Krugers.