/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10212682
Congrats, contact the folks at perplex city for your prize
https://perplexcitywiki.com/wiki/Riemann

>>10212682
So basically, this board is not for actual good discussion.
>inb4 some autists solves one problem years ago
This isn’t just a place to shitpost and fuck around. People here are not as smart as they try to make it seem and it’s 4chan so of course it is toxic. I just come here to shitpost on study breaks sometimes. I really should stop

>>10212690
*is just a place to shitpost and fuck around

>>10212689
>https://perplexcitywiki.com/wiki/Riemann
in this link it says: "BOTTOM RIGHT: $1,000,000 prize offered upon solving this puzzle." The money is for solving the problem, the money is for getting someone to publish to the solution in their magazine. Just solving the problem gets you jack shit.

Indeed, this is my second disproof of RH. I disproved it already in March 2017 and if solving the problem was good enough to get the $1M then I would be just three short months away from paying about $400k in federal taxes.

>>10212744
>money is for solving the problem
money is **~~NOT~~** for solving the problem

>I promise guys, its not actually infinity because I said its not
Every number in the neighborhood of infinity behaves like infinity in every function its used in. If all the arrows between objects in the category are the same, then the category is isomorphic, and hence a number in the neighborhood of infinity is infinity up to isomorphism.

>>10212682
I'm not convinced by your arguments

>>10212682
>infinity with a fancy hat
Well there’s your problem. You need to give it a different cover

>>10212753
but he wrote it in latex so it must be true

1. Change definition of real numbers
2. ???
3. Profit!

definition 0.1: the number [math]\hat{0}[/math] inherits all standard properties of 0 except that

[eqn]\zeta(\hat{0}) = 0[/eqn]

as a trivial corollary of this definition, the riemann hypothesis is false
gimme my million bucks

>>10212690
Why? Humans only live to communicate. If you enjoy it on 4chan then it's because it provides communication aligned to your needs and interests.

Or is this a superiority perspective here?

>>10212682
You need to up your linguistic game, Tooker.

>>10212682
>It's weird how there is 100% agreement of all scientists and mathematicians to never acknowledge my contributions in public
It's almost as if your nonsensical trash isn't actually a "contribution"

>>10212768
>without proof that such a number exists at all
how fucking retarded are you? Did you even look at the paper?

>>10212682
I'm only on page 4. So far this sounds like some 'sneakily dividing by zero' type of shit.

>Since ∞ and ̂ ∞ are the same number

>>10212801
woops, you're right, I need to say "let this number exist" first. then it will exist and I can claim my prize.
thanks for your input.

>>10212748
imagine being so bad you cant even publish in a non peer reviewed journal

>>10212801
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>10212682
The limits of sine and cosine at infinity are deez nutz

...

>>10212848

>>10212750
>Every number in the neighborhood of infinity behaves like infinity in every function its used in
This is completely stupid, like epically retarded. In physics, functions very often take the form of
f(x) = f(x - x_0)

If both number are in the nbhd of infinity then they behave as per usual and if only one of the is then we open a whole new class of behaviors. Furthermore, it is possible that further analysis will yield novel results regarding the integrals over integrand whose values depend on numbers in the nbhd of infinity. For instance, as a hypothetical, an integral that usually diverges might not diverge when you add a number in the nbhd of infinity in some judicious fashion.

>>10212753
I haven't made any arguments. I've listed several statements. If you think a statement is false then please identify it and say why you think it's false. Also, I assume you are just an idiot that doesn't know anything about reason or rhetoric, but if you think there's an argument in my paper, please do me the favor of identifying that which you believe is an argument.

>>10212759
I didn't change the definition. All scalars less than infinity and greater than minus infinity are reals. This is the usual definition. What I did was examine a region of the real line that the other researchers failed to notice and have not previously analyzed.

>>10212682
>be a prof
>some fool is harassing you constantly with some bullshit

>>10212859
>In physics
Good thing it's the Clay Physics Institute prize you want
oh wait

>>10212682
you have to make contributions first

>>10212811
They are same number. Without the hat, the mathematician, or the troglodyte on 4chan, is free to do the order of operations however they want and is free to simplify or not simplify any expressions as desired. The hat restricts this freedom.

>>10212820
In the bible it is said, "Don't sweat it if the world hates you. They hated me first."

>>10212871
>They are same number
>he's just flat-out saying infinity is a number now

>>10212866
You comment is stupid but even in the reference frame of your comment, timecube gets more mentions, by far, than the MCM, and that is weird to me.

>>10212874
open your eyes

>>10212874

>>10212882
>Note that these improper elements are NOT real numbers
way to BTFO yourself

>>10212886
So you aren't solving it for the real numbers. Therefore its not valid according to the specification of the problem.

>>10212877
it's a good thing i'm not actually taking you seriously, i'm just shitting on your thread

>>10212889
I didn't say they were real numbers. Ever heard of an imaginary number? They aren't real either and yet, somehow, no one disputes that they are numbers.

>>10212891
shush you're just provoking him to talk about riemann's definitions of the real numbers

>>10212894
I hope to explain to you day the grievous folly of such pursuits

>>10212901
you never will

>>10212903
your relatives then, or maybe you are a bot and I can explain it to your operator and his people

>>10212907
you also never will. you'll never know who i am or who any of my friends or family are. i'm a spec in the wild.

>>10212895
>Ever heard of an imaginary number?
Have you? I didn't see anybody post an i anywhere.

>>10212895
Did you guys notice how the fool is wearing romperkins and the background is like my tattoo?

>>10212911
>Have you?
If I'm able to prove you wrong one day, then I will gloat.

>>10212913
>Have you?
yes, on very many occasions.

>>10212923
So the point of your post is that you believe infinity is an imaginary number?

>>10212927
Lol you HAVE heard of the riemann sphere right? Dunce.

>>10212690
I have found some good fucking posts here, rare though

>>10212927
The point, as you are well aware, and I stated clearly in my earlier posts, is that infinity is a number.

infinity is on its way out, son. It's not a rigorous thing. it doesn't actually exist. it is and has always been an arbitrary plot device to fudge numbers and skip important information. it's basically a patent by obfuscation; what matters is not the "formula", but anything real that might be produced by said "formula".

your shit is getting rejected because you're not providing anything real.

i think most importantly, and what you're overlooking, is the fact that the community wants Riemann Hypothesis to be proven true; or rather, what they want is there to exist a "simple" method to figure where primes are and if there is some pattern to their distribution.

You get 0 points for trying to prove that it's false, cause that's not the part of the problem. The problem asks it be proven true.

>>10213001
but its certainly false

>>10212682
>vixra.org
are you trying to phish 4channel users or something?

>>10213017
vixra is for the schizos and misfits who can't get on arxiv

>>10212997
>it doesn't actually exist.
what is pic related symbol then? How many points are in a continuous line segment?

>>10213061
retarded squiggly line.
R as many as you want to prove a point and solve a problem.

>>10212997
It is possible that there are infinite universes, and that there will always be some form of existence, so it is possible that you exist within the context of infinite, although there is nothing observable that is infinite, duh.

>>10212997
>it doesn't actually exist.
If it doesn't exist, why do mathematicians make a distinction between countable and uncountable infinity?

>>10213067
>countable infinity

I just read your paper. Here are some of my favorite parts.

>>10213085
Brainlet

>>10213066
>infinite, although there is nothing observable that is infinite
observe the unit interval: the real number line between zero and one. Are you saying it's your opinion that you can't plainly observe this finite interval and THE INFINITELY MANY POINTS it contains?

>>10213092
nope, thats a concept you dunce

>>10213088

>>10213094
You think it's only a concept that there are infinitely many numbers greater than zero and less than one? And you think I'm a dunce? That makes perfect sense.

>>10213118
numbers are a concept

>>10213111
Setting b>0 doesnt address the problem

>>10213134
it does. to get
inf - inf = 0

from the definitions you need to set
a = b = 0

>>10212682
>It's weird how there is 100% agreement of all scientists and mathematicians to never acknowledge my contributions in public.
Seeing how you have 0 academic contributions, it's not that strange.

>>10212848
I'm not well-versed in math (yet), but isn't this correct? Dividing any number by infinity is 0 right?

>>10213143
Then how do you subtract the infinities from each side? Isnt that implicitly saying they have the same value?

>>10213157
>he doesn't know the hat symbol
lurk more

>>10212859
>What I did was examine a region of the real line that the other researchers failed to notice and have not previously analyzed.
That region doesn't exist with other people's definition of real numbers.

>>10213143
undefined ±(-b +a) = ±(a -b)
>set: b > 0
±(-b +a) = ±(a -b)
>no more undefined!

That's some next level shit.


Another thing I want to ask you, how come according to you; infinity - infinity = 0, but infinity + infinity = infinity

>>10213160
>Then how do you subtract the infinities from each side?
I dont

>>10213186
>That region doesn't exist with other people's definition of real numbers.
it exists in the most general definition

>>10213188
>according to you; infinity - infinity = 0,
according to me, pic

>>10213201
>it exists in the most general definition
"Real numbers" has an established meaning. If you look at the "most general definition" then you're not looking at real numbers.

>>10213206
if you look in the mirror, you will see someone who recently posted something stupid

>>10213208
You can keep pointing to your a priori real line all you want.

>>10213201
Then how is it valid to say that (hatinf-a)-(hatinf-b)=(a-b)? If infinity-infinity is undefined, how do you connect those dots?

if infinity exists, and prime distribution becomes lesser and lesser while numbers get greater and greater, then there are a sub-infinite (finite) number of primes.

>>10213201
>according to me, pic
also according to you:
>>10213111

Explain those equations in the picture:
>>10213111

>>10213226
false, given any number of primes you can find a number that isnt divisible by any of the primes you counted
this is basically the first math proof anyone learns

>>10212744
If you actually solved it, they would publish it. Dividing by infinity and seeing that it's 0 didn't mean you found a new zero, it means you did a trivial transformation and misinterpreted the problem

Just wait for Tooker to sperg out and report his posts, it always happens, he can't help it

Based schizoposter

>>10212682
Ok, actual (junior) mathematician here. Commenting on your paper because I am depresed and having problems not procrastinating. The first problem is definition 3.2 "all the properties of [math]\infty[/math]" is not a rigurous definition, it is not specific enough. Give the complete list of properties that you claim it to have and prove something exists with these properties.

>>10213415
You're very generous if that's the first problem you find
Nothing on this paper makes sense
The fuck is a cut on the real line

>>10213418
He knows it's not a field, and that it doesn't have closure under addition, and he just doesn't care.

>>10213420
If R_ex is not a field, then how do you define the complex plane that would be its algebraic closure

>>10213418
I suppose it's just a confused rephrasing of the usual definition of the real numbers. Everything before that is pretty much trivial if strangely written. I tried to find where I would not be able to formalize it and just ignore everything that can be chalked to highly nonstandard notation.

>>10213430
He'll probably just say the complex plane exists a priori.

>>10213433
You mean Dedekind's cuts?
Dedekind's cuts are constructed much more carefully than that
The whole goal of this first section is both pedantry and trying to submerge you under vague notions

>>10213449
Also I mean a 1 instead of the five
I don't feel motivated enough to do the rest, this will be restating forever the same things

>>10213449
Yes. But I mean, if he is trying to define the real numbers then I am just going to ignore that, it is not fun. The definitions before that use new symbols so those symbols can be taken to be defined as required with no problem. I think it is only in definition 3.2 that I would not be able to write this in completely formal language.

>>10213418
Whoa whoa whoa my dude, chill the fuck out

We all know he is wrong, but the thing with cranks is you can't get them to go "oh, I see why this dose not work". The only way this is going to end is either he will realize on his own terms that what he is doing is not working, or, just like Gene Ray and his time cube, be relegated to a small corner of the world repeating to himself that he got it right ad infinitum until he dies.

Till then, let enjoy watching him spin his wheels on a board no one in any STEM community takes seriously.

>>10213449
Ah, you're new to tooker threads. He claims that his cuts are a more general type than dedekind cuts. No, there is no good definition of what those cuts are.

>>10213466
>Ah, you're new to tooker threads
So jealous, wish you were talking about me

>>10212820
It is peer reviewed.

>>10213496
ArXiv is moderated, not peer reviewed

>>10213523
your mom was peer reviewed, then sent back for corrections

>>10212690
there are plenty of good discussions

"El Arcon" here is a schizo idiot who cant seem to understand that his proof is built on ridiculous premises that are incorrect

>>10212989
In what world can infinity be a number? Its just an arbitrary concept of an upper or lower bound limit. You can't actually count to infinity or infinity minus 1 even.

>>10212859
make some new images

>>10213558
Nope, just your failed journal submissions

>>10213006
It's most likely true but unprovable. We will probably need to add it as an axiom in mathematical logic to keep consistency.

>>10213653
Dunning kruger

>>10213088
By riemann rearrangement inf-inf is whatever you want it to be. Truly inderterminant.

>>10213157
Dog, if you are still learning. Don't come to a tooker thread, this is where the big boys play.

>>10213221
You can't, an undefined value is not equal to another undefined value.

>>10213386
I think Tooker is referring to the idea of dedekind cuts when he says cuts. That's how you define the reals from the rationals. That part I thought was reasonable enough for Tooker to state, but the rest of your criticisms I think are valid.

>>10213687
He HATES Dedekind cuts.

>>10213687
lurk moar

>>10213283
less than 2% of numbers under [math]10^27[/math] are prime. the percentage shrinks going forward. with infinite numbers, 0% would be prime.

>>10213415
>Give the complete list of properties
are you fucking retarded?

there are no positive and negative infinity. mostly because infinity doesn't exist at all.
but if you were to first instantiate that infinity is the largest number, thus positive, it stands that by relation to infinity, all numbers are equidistant from it. The largest arbitrary real number simply swapped to be negative would be no further from reaching infinity than it's positive version; as they're both equally incapable of being incremented towards infinity; therefore negative infinity has no meaning, therefore infinity is not a number.

>>10213466
>there is no good definition of what those cuts are
are you fucking retarded?

>>10213807
If infinity Evolved From the natural numbers, Why Are There Still natural numbers?

>>10213591
>You can't actually count to infinity or infinity minus 1 even.
You mean I can't count to it starting from zero. I can definitely count to both of those numbers:
inf - 5
inf - 4
inf - 3
inf - 2
etc...

>>10213711
They are merely needlessly complicated for what I'm working on. Certainly people find them useful and that's fine with me.

>>10213807
THANK YOU LORD! I KNEW MY DEVOTION WOULD BE REWARDED!

MAY YOUR GLORIOUS CHARIOT TO YOUR RECOGNITION BY OTHERS BE GILDED BY MY PRAYERS AND DESIRE FOR YOU TO BE CARRIED ON WINGS ETERNAL!

>>10213801
>mostly because infinity doesn't exist at all.
How many real numbers are there between 0.001 and 0.0011?

>>10213826
Thanks :)

>no Archimedean property

>>10213386
>>10213400
>>10213418
>>10213430
>>10213449
I stopped reading at pic. Do you remember that time we went to Queens to visit Gloria and we were looking at some pamphlet of Yiddish phrases. One of them was, "If grandmother had had balls then she would have been grandfather." You don't have balls. That's literally the only thing matters.
>literally the only thing matters
>literally
>the only thing matters
If you would have been born with balls then you might be the King of Babylon but you weren't; I am. Furthermore, the only reason Babylon even exists is because of my many great discoveries including the time circuit. If it wasn't for all the great things I did, you never would have been anyone and would have gotten killed a long time ago for even just a small fraction of the bullshit you've pulled. It's all for me; you get nothing.

>>10213826
>>10213836

>>10213830
i can ask fucking retarded questions too bro

how many atoms of hydrogen are on earth

>real numbers are defined as a cut in some unspecified line
>a cut is defined as breaking the line into two intervals
>intervals are specific types of sets of real numbers
>real numbers are defined as a cut in some unspecified line

>>10213830
there like, .0001 numers, right?

>>10213760
yeah, and?
the number of powers of 2 also decreases as you add more numbers, theres still infinitely many powers of 2

>>10213760
Assume there are a finite number of primes. Call them p1 p2....pk.

Define n = p1*p2*...*pk - 1

This number is odd. It is also prime since any factor dividing n would also have to divide 1.

The distribution tends to 0 but theres no tail of a sequence of primes that is 0.

>>10213846
I initially thought that this property meant that the real have no largest element. Someone recently explained to me that the Archimedes property is that if
x < y

then you can add x to itself enough times such that
nx > y

At first, I thought "n" must be a natural number because that is usually implicit for "n" However, if we take "n" to simply be any real number like "x" and "y" are any real number then we can examine
5 < (inf -5)

If "n" in "N" then we cannot get the correct output. Therefore, switch directly to the Eudoxus formulation which derives
nx > y

directly from multiplication without reference to "adding to itself" over and over. Simply choose
n = inf - 0.1

so that
5 (inf - 0.1) = inf - 0.5

and
inf - 0.5 > inf -5

We have taken "n," "x," and "y" as reals and preserved the property. The property does not hold if "n" has to be any natural number but it does hold if "n" is any real number. You might call this God's formulation of Eudoxus' formulation of the Archimedean property.

>>10213876
>how many atoms of hydrogen are on earth
There exist a finite number of these atoms. I have answered your question now. Are you suggesting that there are a finite number of real numbers between 0.001 and 0.0011?

>>10213894
Multiplying by integers is the whole point of the Archimedean property.

>>10213897
Are you seriously assuming there are a finite number of hydrogen atoms on earth?

>>10213880
I would write your third point as
>an interval is a specific type of set used to define ordering for the set

>>10213898
What you say seems correct.

>>10213902
absolutely. do you think there's an infinite number of them? Try comparing the mass the of the earth in kilograms to an infinite number of atomic mass units.

>>10213909
>What you say seems correct.
What if that's what (((they))) want you to think?

Hey guys I changed my mind. I really am crazy and my “proof” is stupid. Thank you all for helping me see the light :)

>>10213909
k bro where do i put my scale to weigh the earth and figure out it's mass.

>multiplying by two doesn't preserve ordering

What a joke.

>>10213912
"Roughly speaking," however, I do respect the Archimedes property, but I don't have any reason to argue that respect it rigorously. For most analytical purposes, however, the key point is that there is no largest element and I do preserve that condition completely.

>>10213922
You'll want to put it somewhere near Turkey

>>10213932
>For most analytical purposes, however, the key point is that there is no largest element
That is absolutely not true.

>>10213925
if you wanted to preserve this (i personally don't care about it) then you define the R x R-hat compositions such that
a (inf - b) = inf - b/a

the fix is trivial, but it's not even right to call it a fix since its ok not to respect the normal ordering. In fact, this leads to a natural condition of anti-symmetry which is MUCH SOUGHT AFTER in physics for the fermionic wavefunctions of the matter particles

>>10213872
If attracting a partner is all that matters then I accept this visage as my own.

May my seed spread far and wide.

>>10213942
>the fix is trivial, but it's not even right to call it a fix since its ok not to respect the normal ordering. In fact, this leads to a natural condition of anti-symmetry which is MUCH SOUGHT AFTER in physics for the fermionic wavefunctions of the matter particles

Grade A bullshit.

>>10213942
stop posting here you goddamn chink fetishizing retard schizo. fuck off forever.

>>10213943

>>10213943
the only honor you'll have is in taking responsibility for your own life and ending it.

>>10213954
nice pinhead you fucking mongoloid.

>>10213958
I thought people like that shape

>>10213964
I thought people like that shape

>>10213966
I mean... is LaTex \widehat not a meme?

>>10213861
you should keep reading that anon's posts, they make good points.

>>10213954
A pleasing breeder.

>>10213956
Why would I supplant The Lord's already divine path and plan for me? It ends when his time asks that I end it, or when he takes it from me.

Praise be to تدفق الخلق

>>10213977
"That anon" is my mom and she's just being a bitch because she was too stupid to understand how smart I am. Her points were either wrong or stupid minutiae. Even in the first one she said my definition was circular when it absolutely was not. She's got a bank of math PhD CIA scientologists somewhere picking apart everything I write and they haven't found an error, and if they claim my math syntax is suboptimal then I don't feel the need to stage a rebuttal because optimization is not a prerequisite for correctness.
>"anon" said it was circular
>but it is not circular
The real issue is that she wants the male inheritance in our family but she doesn't have any testicles, never did, and never will.

>>10214003
Why is it not circular?

>>10214003
Imagine being this crazy.

>>10214003
how do you know that is your mother?

>>10214010
It's not circular because what I wrote does not conform to the definition of circular reasoning.

>>10213915
Finally

>>10213942
So for with your anti-symmetry, for what b does a=inf-b?

>>10213430
> At this point, we must cease to delay additive absorption by removing the hat.
My sides have escaped earths gravity

>>10213992
> thier

Is this how schizophrenic retards are treated in the West nowadays? You simply let them walk around, shit limitless on the internet and annoy people to death?

I miss the good old Soviet Union where those fuckers were simply fed to death with pills in dispensaries or sent to uranium mines.

>>10214112
I take screenshots and put them safely into my Jonathon Warren Tooker folder where I store his address

Is 4chan not the largest 'seek publicity here, seek a public account of your death'-style node of communication for the English speaking intense internet users? (A valid demographic dimension)

As in if any real public figure admitted to being a /b/-tard then all here... OH! LIKE IF TRUMP ADMITTED TO BEING A /B/TARD AND QUOTES A FUCKING OLD MEME! Now THAT would be a gilded timeline.

You fuckers would get confidence like nobody else! What if he also praised kek? Just to get out of being persecuted by the legal system he takes up the 4chan agenda and ascends on wings of all true angry internet users everywhere.

On a second note, why the fuck does any human being FEAR persecution from their actions? It's like negative feedback is what most of you guys look for. Getting that data is fine but why use that shit to chip away at your self esteem?

>>10214123
You just admitted to being from reddit

Next time I get into an internet argument I am going to accuse my opponent of being my mom

>>10214135
Cosmically speaking this is a valid mapping. Your mother is the ultimate boss because as an immortal fuckmachine the last person you'd want to fuck is the woman who thought bringing you into this world was a good idea.

>>10214131
NO! YOU CHANGE YOUR OPINION OF THAT POSTER RIGHT NOW!

>>10214070
>it’s not circular because it’s not circular

I am geeking.

>>10214161
A square is not a circle, therefore it is not a circle

Anyways, what programs do I need to start making bullshit papers like this, I want to create my own vixra shizo man paradise

>>10214165
El Arcon is so zen, he feeds off the attention lesser men gift his story mandala.

>>10214172
Yeah

>>10214070
>a real number is a cut
>a cut is something which separates the real number line
You use cuts to define real numbers and real numbers to define cuts. One has to come first.

>>10214165
LaTeX

>>10214081
>so for with cow on farm, how is milk cheese?

>>10214236
>You use cuts to define real numbers and real numbers to define cuts.
you are totally stupid and wrong. I use cuts to define real numbers and I use lines to define cuts. A line is defined a priori but even then I gave the definition of the line in def 1.2

>>10213894
>can can be any number in the reals

Wrong. Theres infinitely many reals such that nx < y

You need some more detail. n,x certainly must be greater than 1 or less than -1.

just take the derivative with respect to x. Really isnt that hard.

>>10212748
The money is not for convincing yourself you've solved the problem.

>>10212989
Even a high schooler could tell you you're wrong

>>10212682
>El Arcón
Back to/x/ schizo

>>10214382
So you can't find a value for b such that a=inf-b? Please tell me more about what symmetry your shit has

>>10214513
That's because he has barely more education than a high schooler

>>10213061
You're Wildberger's worst nightmare.

>>10213118
Infinity is not a number

>>10214500
Thanks Obama

>>10214613
prove it

>>10214648
Burden of proof is on the ditz claiming infinity is a number nibba

Why don't we start reporting these dumb ass Tooker threads?

>>10214807
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Your claim was that infinity is not a number. Please provide proof

>>10214811
I have been and continue to report not only the overall thread, but Tooker's individual posts that are spamming or sperging. I encourage everyone in these threads to as well

>>10214811
why would you report them? they're the only interesting threads on the board these days. you want to kill these so we can have more /pol/ garbage?

>>10213932
>the key point is that there is no largest element and I do preserve that condition completely.

Lmao you literally don't know what the Archimedian property is

>>10213667
You can make sense of division by an infinite quantity with limits, but infinity isn't a number in the real number system that neurotypical, non-Tooker people use. You can maybe define other number systems where infinity is a number that you can do operations with, but they're useless because they either lead to awkward theorems and contradictions, or they just don't have any nice properties that would make them worth talking about (won't form a field, etc.)

>>10214811
Based and redpilled
We must report these threads so we can discuss real science like race, IQ, how to stop the Jews, and why niggers are dumb.

>>10213807
>set subtraction
>between [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] and [math]x[/math]
>not [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] and [math]\{x\}[/math]
lol

>>10212682
>it's hard for me to understand how there is perfect unanimity across the entire world on this issue.
Have you seriously, sincerely considered the possibility that you're just wrong?

>>10213386
>>10213687
It should be a cut in the *rationals*, otherwise the definition is circular.

>>10214843
Not anon, but burden of proof is on the claimant that infinity exists

>>10214880
You don't exist, apparently no proof required

>>10214165
A program like Texmaker to make writing and compiling [math]\LaTeX[/math] convenient (in theory you can just use notepad and compile your code from a terminal), and probably TeXLive. You don't have to learn [math]\LaTeX[/math] even, just Google what you want to do as you go.

>>10213430
>>10214096
[math]\mathbb{REMOVING}[/math] [math]\mathbb{THE}[/math] [math] \mathbb{HAT} [/math]

The existence of real numbers which are not in the neighborhood of the origin would directly contradict the Archimedean property of the reals. How do you respond to that?

>>10214890
>in theory you can just use notepad and compile your code from a terminal
this is the superior way

>>10214937
But if you use Notepad.exe instead of vim or visual studio code then you probably have a Tooker-tier IQ.

You can in fact prove the Riemann Hypothesis by using hyperimaginary numbers

>using infinity as both a real number AND infinity at the same time

hyperkek

>>10214970
i use notepad++ because i don't like how vim treats long wrapped lines

>>10214870
yea, i want to ask how long its gonna take me to learn calc 1 in 30 min

Let me get this straight

The whole basis of this thread is that someone made the elementary fallacy that

[math] \frac{1}{\infty}=0[/math]

>>10214811
they are regularly reported and deleted, but you're battling against a homeless dude who (I think) claims to live in Atlanta.
you will never succeed in banning every free wi-fi hotspot in a city of 500,000 people