/sci/ - Science & Math

Yo fuck off you stole my idea of superzero. You'll be hearing from my lawyers.

>>10151148
So what is 5/hat(0)?

>>10151186
it’s just 5 divided by zero-hat; as defined

>>10151197
So does that have any other representation or is it also null?

Still fails at basic proofs.

You never defined nor proved what 0hat/0hat is but assumed it was 1 in your proof.

This "proof" also works with 0 and is one of the reasons dividing by 0 is undefined.

>>10151210
No, but 0 is different from hat(0) because the fat tells you to break math before caring about the 0 so that you can prove Jon is retarded

>>10151213
this.

>>10151213
Still waiting for him to smite me down...

>>10151210
the joke

-----------

your head

>>10151213
Yeah but only "the world's greatest physicist" and the "world's greatest mathematician" can introduce new notation to do things (renormaluzation and limits) improperly that we already have proper ways to handle

You can't just give zero-hat the properties which define zero and then say it is not equal to zero

>>10151278
He just did
>checkmate

>>10151278
He also does this with infinity and uses a lot of words to say "I'm not going to care about your counter examples and reasons I'm wrong"

He also had his post closed from admin onstackexchange. Didn't know that actually happens until Jon

>>10151148
I can't wait until The Lord aka El Arcón gets unbanned and kicks your fucking ass.

>>10151298
He still incessantly posts. I really wish he would just be permabanned

>>10151298
Give him time, after posting here this long he's probably running out of McDonald's that aren't waiting out a 30-day ban on their free wi-fi

>>10151298
Based on what he posts, dude is delusional and sounds like he's gonna shoot up his work one day to get back at the people who don't go along with his delusions. I think that's maybe why his latest thread got taken down.

>>10151312
Hello newfriend, Jonathan Tooker is unemployed.

>>10151323
Where had he been employed? Did he do any work after he was "expelled" for not paying tuition?

>>10151148
how is "zero hat" different than "zero". I'm genuinely curious.

>>10151393
Jon would say that you don't compute the 0 until you check all other hat(0) that could cancel. Honestly just a shitty way of ignoring math until you can cancel things to find something new. Obviously, as previously stated, and you should find more examples of your own, it is ill-defined and a poor definition. Take that advice with all things from Jon (The Lord, El Archon, or basically any other named post because he's so narcissistic he can't help from doing it).

posting this, was sort of my inspiration

>>10151414
In addition to losing closure inder addition, multiplying a "number in the neighborhood of infinity" by two also doesn't respect the ordering of "real numbers"

>>10151404
yep, pic related from his masterwork

>>10151414
I bet this was written by a freshman newfag

>>10151448
Like 100% of Jon's work. Have to keep your audience in mind

>>10151228
sooner than it was yesterday

>>10151298

>>10151312
>he's gonna shoot up his work one day
I've been 100% unemployed for about two years

>>10151422
I think it does. Any positive number multiplied by two results in a larger number.

>>10151440
I should change this to say that x_n is monotonic

>>10151508
you should change it to remove infinity hat. did you read OP's "paper"?

>>10151504
wait... this wrong. Interesting. It results in a smaller number.

>>10151494
From you, still infinitely far away, which is beyond the reals, and never gets measurably closer

bump since i think jon's still online and still dodging replying to OP

>>10151197
Your number system isn't closed under division?

>>10151995
closure is for plebs

I was taught in school that that meant it was just incorrect and that A: That I did it incorrectly or B:The equation was set up wrong or in a way that was illogical.

>>10151148
pic suggests to me that division by zero should be undefined

>>10152046
pic

>>10152046
yes, zero-hat is ill-defined and likewise so is infinity-hat. time to retract your articles

>>10152049
I didn't propose to divide by zero, I left that undefined and by so doing I invoked no contradiction to make my definitions mostly useless.

>>10152059
but 0 != 0-hat is basically equivalent to infinity != infinity-hat

they both break math. anything you derive from there on out is bound to be full of inconsistencies and therefore useless/wrong

>>10152062
Infinity is equal to infinity-hat. I did not make it a distinct number, I let the hat be a constraint on the the freedom to do the algebraic operations in a certain order. Even when infinity has absorption, you have freedom noy to absorb in many instances

>>10152073
If the result depends on whether you choose to exercise a freedom, then there isn't a unique result.

>>10152078
yes
>>10152073
i did the same thing with zero-hat. and you see where that leads. to 1=2 which is equivalent to anything=anything else
you can't make it work

>>10152078
>>10152079
no this is wrong. Consider the number which is equal to three plus four. I don't have to add these numbers together but they uniquely sum to seven.

>>10152106
not if 1=2
then 3+4=(1+2)+4=(2+2)=8

look up the principle of explosion

>>10152106
not if 1=2
then 3+4=(1+2)+4=(2+2)+4=8

look up the principle of explosion

>>10152118
but 1 != 2

>>10152120
not if you believe in hats. zero-hat clearly proves it and infinity-hat implicitly proves it; therefore both lead to contradictions

>>10152123
No, only his set of definitions lead to the contradiction 1=2. You can't get that from my definitions.

>>10152127
yes you can. no matter how hard you change your definitions, infinity-hat being non- additively-absorptive leads to contradictions. and therefore the principle of explosion.

i can't keep track of your latest definition, since you shifted it to "let's make it dependent on some freedom in the order of operations" instead of a fallacious limit definition, and that made it even worse (_much_ worse, since now there are infintely many places for you to hide your contradiction)

it doesn't work. infinity-hat = infinity and moving your order of operations doesn't help; it just hides contradictions. you lose.

>>10152127
You do violate the ordering of real numbers with your multiplication rules. You can multiply a positive number by two and get a smaller number. At the very least, you'll have to abandon any result that relies on the ordering of real numbers being respected.

terry is what happens when a smart person falls into schizophrenia
tooker is what happens when a dumb person is likewise afflicted

The Archimedean property has been around for more than 2000 years. Why have you thrown it away?

>>10151499
Based Jon

>>10151148
as a physicist, my first question is, what evidence have you found for zero-hat in reality?

>>10152174
good troll, but anyhow OP meant it ironically as an example of the kinds of fallacies Jon T. is basing his "proofs" on

>>10152073
Consider this

[eqn] \widehat{\infty} - b = \infty - b = \infty = \widehat{\infty} [/eqn]

Then [math]\widehat{\infty}[/math] is additively absorptive.

bump, jon should be back any minute now

Jon don’t leave us hanging

>>10151148
heteroticity can't hold. what does 0 + hat(0) yield?
0 = 0 + hat(0) = hat(0) + 0 = hat(0)