/sci/ - Science & Math

An obviously correct equation. Everyone knows infinite of nothing is something.

>>15037422
>>15037446

∞ is not a number, retard

>>15037448
Why not?

>>15037448
If ∞ is not real then why does it work so well to predict the world?

>>15037422
F(x)=0*x
What is the end behavior of the function as x approaches infinity?

is infinity imaginary

>>15037422
22/inf=0 --> 0*inf=22

1/0 = inf
inf*0 = 0
None of this is complicated mathfags are pure schizo

>>15037794
> 1/0 = inf
No. 1/(a very small positive number) approaches infinity, but 1/0 is undefined.


Your equations refute each other. Let’s say you multiple 0 over from the 1/0 expression. You’d get 1 = inf*0, and you said inf*0 is equal to 0. Does 1=0? Of course not.

>>15037802
And I’m guessing you’ll say that multiplying 1/0 by 0 would still be 0.

You have no reason to believe that if you’re allowing zero division. What’s your definition for the expression 0/0?

>>15037458
The world isn’t real.
Checkmate faggot.

>>15037469
0=1/infinity, so lim as x-> infinity of F(x) would be 1 as OP said, no?

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/2111.0072
>http://gg762.net/d0cs/papers/Fractional_Distance_v6-20210521.pdf
Recent analysis has uncovered a broad swath of rarely considered real numbers called real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Here we extend the catalog of the rudimentary analytical properties of all real numbers by defining a set of fractional distance functions on the real number line and studying their behavior. The main results of are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number, (2) to develop a technique for taking a limit at infinity via the ordinary Cauchy definition reliant on the classical epsilon-delta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the neighborhood of infinity. We define numbers in the neighborhood of infinity as Cartesian products of Cauchy equivalence classes of rationals. We axiomatize the arithmetic of such numbers, prove all the operations are well-defined, and then make comparisons to the similar axioms of a complete ordered field. After developing the many underlying foundations, we present a basis for a topology.

>>15037422
In mmp the illuminati operator resolves the twin paradox of the infinite nothingness by bequeathing the continuum

>>15037846
Axioms 2.1.6 isn't really an axiom since you can sketch a proof that
[eqn]\frac{1}{y-x}\in\mathbb{R}\Rightarrow\exists{r\in\mathbb{R}}\;r>\frac{1}{y-x}\Rightarrow\exists{n\in\mathbb{N}}\;n>r[/eqn]

>>15037889
By not giving the proof but claiming the truthfulness of the statement, I have taken this as an axiom of the analytical framework which I have communicated in the paper. In my understanding of the elements of style for mathematical publications, it is appropriately labelled as an axiom because the proof is not given in the self-contained treatise. (Self-containment is the reason this paper is so long.) One reason for my taking this axiom rather than sketching a proof such as the one you have shown is that your proof's reliance on R could and would be identified by critics as a step of self-referential, circular reasoning in my development of R. Section 2.1 are in the part of the treatise where I construct R so it is impossible for me to use R itself to explain anything or justify the enumerated articles given there such as Axiom 2.1.6.

Personally, I see what you're saying and I agree as a matter of practicality. Hilbert's discarded axiom which I use in Section 3 ended up being discarded because it could be proven by Hilbert's other axioms but I am not sure that the proof you have written can be proven with my own other axioms. I am pretty sure it cannot, actually. Overall, the point of this long paper is to build an unassailable fortress of mathematical self-cohesion that cannot be undermined by even the most maliciously pedantic detractors. Therefore, I have prioritized rigor over practicality and the article is given as an axiom. Per the abstract: "The main results are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number." Axiom 2.1.6 is one of those modest axioms. Thank you for looking at my paper, comrade, and for your constructive criticism.

>>15037859
0 is perfectly precise, but it has no digits no length it really is best seen as just a place holder

Infinity has no precision at all, you can't give it a place on any number line, even if you had an endless amount of digits

We see they are two sides of the same coin, and in its attempts to consume one another creates the reality

>>15037889
By not giving the proof but claiming the truthfulness of the statement, I have taken this as an axiom of the analytical framework which I have communicated in the paper. In my understanding of the elements of style for mathematical publications, it is appropriately labelled as an axiom because the proof is not given in the self-contained treatise. (Self-containment is the reason this paper is so long.) One reason for my taking this axiom rather than sketching a proof such as the one you have shown is that your proof's reliance on R could and would be identified by critics as a step of self-referential, circular reasoning in my development of R. Section 2.1 is the part of the treatise where I construct and/or define R so it is impossible for me to use R itself to explain anything or justify the enumerated articles given there, such as Axiom 2.1.6.

Personally, I see what you're saying and I agree as a matter of practicality. "Hilbert's discarded axiom" which I use in Section 3 ended up being discarded because it could be proven by Hilbert's other axioms. However, I am not sure that the proof you have written can be proven with my own other axioms. I am pretty sure it cannot, actually. Overall, the point of this long paper is to build an unassailable fortress of mathematical self-cohesion that cannot be undermined by even the most maliciously pedantic detractors. Therefore, I have prioritized rigor over practicality and the article is given as an axiom. Per the abstract: "The main results are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number." Axiom 2.1.6 is one of those modest axioms: the real numbers do not include infinitesimals. Thank you for looking at my paper, comrade, and for your constructive criticism.

Here is a less long paper which I believe is fully rigorous but in which I do not start by reinventing the figurative wheel.

Here is a short paper where I hinge everything on a proposition, Prop 1.8, but then do not prove the soundness and validity of the proposition, only its consequences when assumed.

Here is a very short paper where I throw rigor out the window to give the gist of the solution as quickly as possible.

For perspective, here is the paper where I laid the out the architecture for the direct counterexamples which came later.

>>15037802
>1/0 is undefined
it's literally defined in IEEE 754

>>15037802
>Your equations refute each other. Let’s say you multiple 0 over from the 1/0 expression. You’d get 1 = inf*0, and you said inf*0 is equal to 0. Does 1=0? Of course not.
pure schizo ramblings, reversibility is not required.

>>15038001
divideByZero obviously computes a limit

god this whole thread has pissed me off and ruined my day

>>15038008
>computes a limit
meaningless cope by a schizo who doesn't even know what an FPU is let alone how it works. Engineers defined what division by zero does back in 1985 while mathfags bumble around saying "you can't divide by zero because 1 != 0!!!!".

up4

sneed3

>>15037458
Because you are not make predictions accurate to an arbitrary amount of decimal places in terms of precision.

>>15037458
we live in a simulation

>>15037422
0 * ∞ = x, where x ∈ R

>>15039590
What about complex numbers?

>>15037838
retard