/sci/ - Science & Math

Get help

>>9847225
how about you come help me?

so infinity equals two pi?

>>9847222
Vixra...

>>9847232
i guess it does if 156pi equals zero

>>9847222
>DEMANDS
This writer’s detractors must acknowledge that his
research program is the best research program, and,
more generally, that he is the best
based

>>9847222
Meaningless

>>9847258
>Meaningless
well-formed statements have nouns and verbs in them

>>9848449
Not true. Implied subjects are not uncommon in the slightest, and the implied verb is "is".

>>9847222
checked

>>9847238
viXra is pretty much arXiv shitposting at this point

>>9848508
If your statement was well-formed, I would be able to tell what you think "is meaningless." As I wonder, it can't be any of the sentences whose meaning is derived from the words contained therein, and it can't be any of the inline math strings whose meaning is derived from the meaning of the symbols, so your ill-formed instance of a statement does not have an implied subject. Your statement is shit, like you genes and your family.

http://rxiv.org/abs/1208.0077
Who the hell is Jonathan Tooker?

>>9848681
I am him.

>>9848681
Some schizo

>>9847222
e^i2pi equals one.
e^0 also equals one.
Therefore, i2pi is equal to zero.
Divide both sides by 2. pi time i equals 0 halves, or just 0.
Divide both sides by pi. Now i equals 0/pi, or just 0.
i is now equal to 0, an obvious false statement, since how is zero the square root of negative one?

>This writer’s detractors must acknowledge that his research program is the best research program, and, more generally, that he is the best.

>>9848857
I'd say it's looking real bad for you dude, and if you were making fun of me then you prudence would require that you kill yourself, to make an example of yourself, before I can make an example of example of you. Also, thanks for referring me to a good looking hooker, faggot. If you weren't making fun of me then stand by.

>>9847238
>>9847232
>>9847225
>>9848508
>>9848449
>>9847258
>>9847251
>>9848835
>>9848824
>>9848681
>>9848663
See here, the thing about it is that if anyone besides me had written this paper, even if it was some child rapist who somehow had LaTeX in his prison cell, they would have recognized the irrefutable result by now, which is as important as it is irrefutable.

>>9848996
relax

>>9849004
you don't know me

>>9849123
The fuck did you have?

>>9849358
>The fuck did you have?

a pretty good idea
>Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082
that no one will recognize because modern academia is purely about being a sycophant and has nothing to do with scholarly merit

>>9847222
Your papers look aesthetic Jonathan, there is no denying that.

>>9849373
there's no denying the content either unless you resort to unsound, specious, and/or fallacious rhetorical devices

>>9849381
So what do you do for a living?

>>9849382
I'm unemployed and was homeless for the last year, and when the three months' rent I paid with my tax return runs out on August 1 it's pretty likely I'll be sleeping on top of the train station again unless someone gives me some money.

>>9849396
How did it get to this point, Johnny boy?

>>9850118
Untreated mental illness.

>the /sci/ version of terry davis
did god reveal these results to you

>>9850261

>>9850118
I guess its
>partly because my lack of homosexual inclination reveals their heresy
>partly because the other Israelites were jelly that I am their king
>partly because they were bringing me blemished sacrifices
>partly because they didn't like that I was trying to get laid (you'd think one goat would be enough to feed Isaac, but he wanted two because the story is about righteous extramarital sex, not lunch)
>partly because they were offering me employment fit for someone much, much less smart than I am
>partly because they killed my friends are still hoping they'll get away with it
>partly because they invested themselves in the learning the deep secrets of Satan instead of the not-too-complicated math I used in my papers
>partly because they would rather cuck me and impregnate women with a syringe rather than offer for me to fuck thier pussies
>partly a culture that teaches women to despise me
>partly a religious order that doesn't think you need to follow the golden rule
>partly lots of stuff, like Satan's rebellion


>>9850261
>did god reveal these results to you
Turns out, I am God!

>>9850261
Terry is actually cool though. This schizo is a prick.

>>9850353
Take your crazy pills, schizo.

>>9847225
>>9847238
>>9848556
>>9848681
You might want to check out his glorious publication track. On viXra:
http://www.vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker

>>9848996
>See here, the thing about it is that if anyone besides me had written this paper, even if it was some child rapist who somehow had LaTeX in his prison cell, they would have recognized the irrefutable result by now, which is as important as it is irrefutable.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
NO.

>>9849358
>The fuck did you have?
A severe case of schizophrenia.

>>9849373
>Your papers look aesthetic Jonathan, there is no denying that.
That's true, usually viXra papers are an ugly Microsoft Word mess... Credit where credit is due.

>>9847222
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1806.0082
Can this shed light into the universe itself? Physics as the emergent phenomena when min and max values as far as lightspeed goes are part of the variations of various recursive equations, amplified and dampened, even semi-paradoxical?

>>9852301
Fuck off Jonathan, take your pills.

>>9852306
Hugh Everett III was treated like this by people like you even though he proved his theories in brilliant math that could not be attacked. I say, you fuck off.

>>9850388
>>9852306
>>9851983
Stop Impersonating me, retard.

Im gay and my articles are bullshit

>>9852310
MWI is trash.

>>9852377
Fuck off brainlet.

>>9852347
Also stop impersonating me IDIOT.

>>9852377
#FUR you!
#FUR #FractalUniverseRevolution
Not only many worlds inside the physics in the many places the wave function seem to collapse, but also post physics, and hopefully aliens we can talk to not just observe in their fractals of existence.

>>9852381
Make me

>>9852418
>implying waste energies on replying to 2worders, but I had 3 energies to spare,

>>9850353
why don't you just work at a gas station so you can pay rent instead of being a hobo?

I'm insane and my brain is slowly rotting away.

>>9852310
No he wasn't. People criticized him by name in scientific circles. I get ignored in scientific circles. If I was criticized there then at least I could respond to their criticisms. Criticisms of 4chan of the form "fuck off schizo, pic related" are nothing like what Everett got.

>>9852418
i'm going to

>>9852427
I'd be rather be a hobo with my little shred of dignity than be the servant of the guy who owns the gas station

>>9852430
>>9852432
What the fuck is wrong with you???
Why are you also trying to pretend to be ME????

>>9852430
>>9852432
>>9852436
We are all you, Jonathan. We are the voices inside your head.

>>9852432
that's somewhat honorable I guess

>>9852310
>Hugh Everett III was treated like this by people like you even though he proved his theories in brilliant math that could not be attacked.
That's completely false...... We still laugh at Hugh Everett many worlds interpretation.

>>9852377
>MWI is trash.
Indeed, that's why this schizo loves it.

>>9852383
>#FUR #FractalUniverseRevolution
Hahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahaha
NO

>and hopefully aliens we can talk to not just observe in their fractals of existence.
I can't repeat it clearer, so I will repeat it louder:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
NO.

>>9852459
Until there is an app for that. : P

>>9853139
Begone false messenger or I will smite you, for I am THE LORD.

>>9853218
>Begone false messenger or I will smite you, for I am THE LORD.
BeGoNe FaLsE mEsSeNgEr Or I wIll SmItE yOu, FoR i Am ThE lOrD.

What the fuck is going on here

>>9852060
>That's true, usually viXra papers are an ugly Microsoft Word mess... Credit where credit is due.

Really though, look at his other publications. It looks really good just skimming over it.

>>9853285
Between that and the level of math involved his stuff gives me the impression he definitely had some sort of formal education somewhere before he lost his marbles.

>>9853302
As far as I can make out it's all in the class ``not even wrong'' as the definitions are incoherent. The use of the adjective «transfinite» with reference to the hypercomplex numbers shows only a superficial familiarity with the field. The hypercomplex numbers have the same cardinality as the reals. They do contain infinities but I've never heard «transfinite» in this context, which is usually reserved for talking about induction and recursion, neither of which is really used in constructing this field.

>>9853413
"Not even wrong" is the classification all schizobabble is going to fall under. It's not a logical stream to begin with, the problem is never going to be a logical flaw.

>>9853418
Sometimes you get these papers proposing to prove the Riemann Hypothesis or similar which make actual claims. It can be a good exercise to find the first error in such a paper. Sadly, this is not one of those.

>>9853413
there's multiple comments that I co-opted the word "hypercomplex" and that I'm not using the other numbers that are called "hypercomplex." It's obvious which one is which, to any who isn't an idiot like you, because I what the properties of ^\star\mathbb{C} are.

I also co-opted the word "chirological" which already existed. In a different pronunciation it has to do with hands and feet, and again, like the other complex numbers, it is obvious that I'm not writing about hands and feet.

Why are paying attention to what I called it that its definition?

>pic related
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

============

>>9853687
>I co-opted the word "hypercomplex" and that I'm not using the other numbers that are called "hypercomplex."
> It's obvious which one is which, to any who isn't an idiot like you
Hurrr, durr, I'm not using the accepted definition of the words, and if you don't understand them it's your problem.

>>pic related
>>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
More cheap propaganda.....

bump

>>9849358
Manic depression

I'll bite. The end of this paper claims that whatever results in hypercomplex numbers can be translated over to [math] \mathbb C [/math], and therefore by restriction to [math] \mathbb R [/math], claiming that [math] \lim_{\theta \to \infty} \sin \theta = 0 [/math]. But any introductory book on calculus or analysis contains a proof that this is the case, using the standard definition of a limit directly. Do you claim that those proofs are flawed? Can you point out where they go wrong?

>>9855054
Not sure what you mean. Did you mean to write
>contains a proof that this *isn't* the case?

When I say "translate to C" I mean to use the formula y=infinity-y+.

When other people claim that these limits don't exist, I claim that I have proved them wrong. These limits do exist and they carry over to R as per usual.

>>9855054
>Can you point out where they go wrong?
I would probably frame it thusly: It was impossible to show what the limits were in R alone, but I have showed a tricky way to get the limit in C where it will carry over to R as per usual

>>9855107
do these limits have any intuitive understanding or any kind of application?

>>9855107
Ok then. Here is a simple proof that [math] \sin \theta [/math] does not converge to 0. If it did, then for all [math] \epsilon > 0 [/math], there exists an [math] x_0 \in \mathbb R [/math], such that for all [math] x > x_0 [/math], we have [math] |\sin x | < \epsilon [/math]. But this is false: pick [math] \epsilon = 1/2 [/math], so that no matter what [math] x_0 [/math] you pick, the next peak of the sin function takes the value 1.

This is a direct contradiction with your result. Where does it go wrong?

>>9855246
He's probably too busy to answer because he's working on his shooting spree. We need help getting his current address so we can call the cops:

>>9855151
>>9855161
>>9855169
>>9855176
>>9855213
>>9855226

>>9855252
I'd rather just let him do it

>>9855252
Why did he say he was larping?

>>9847222
>In mathematical terms, consider a vector space H
>consisting of all combinations of words that can be
>used to define an absolute moral proposition. Limit the
>propositions in H such that they contain at most 10^100
>words because a human must be able to fully consider
>a proposition from H in one lifetime. Now consider the
>vector space Ω of all moral quandaries that might arise
>in life. The vectors in Ω form a continuous spectrum. As
>defined, H is a finite-dimensional vector space but Ω is
>infinite-dimensional. Therefore, Ω can never be covered
>with vectors from H. Therefore, it is impossible for a
>human to implement moral absolutism.

>>9855425
I think he figured out we're on to him
This guy is school shooter kinds of crazy
Thinks Obama was being mind controlled etc..

>>9848835
>e^i2pi equals one.
>e^0 also equals one.
>Therefore, i2pi is equal to zero.
Wrong, I explained this to you before, e^ix is periodic, so you can't deduce from e^x = e^y that x = y, for complex x & y, like you can for real x & y. Think about sin(x), if we have sin(x) = sin(y), we cannot deduce that x = y because sin is periodic: all we can say is x = y + 2pi n, and for e^x = e^y, all we can say is that x = y + 2pi i n.

>>9855436
Why are the words limited but not the possible scenarios? If we're going to limit the words to one human lifetime then we can do the same with the number of moral quandaries that will be encountered.

>>9847222
>references are all to his papers and his papers alone
lel

>>9855131
I think a lot of other unsolved problems were bottlenecked where these limits were thought not to exist

>>9855246
there is no x greater than infinity in R

>>9855320
bless you my child

>>9855458
pic

>>9855466
>Why are the words limited but not the possible scenarios?
scenarios for a continuum, combinations of words don't
this is obvious

>>9850388
Are you talking with yourself?
Or are you being ironic

>>9850409
Stop samefagging. It's sad.

>>9847222
Ok tell me God, is the universe deterministic or it isn't? do we have free will? does randomness truly exists? do bosons and atoms TRULY random decay?

when are you going to kill people?
what is your goal?

>>9855623
>there is no x greater than infinity in R
You simply don't understand the definition of the limit at infinity.>>9855623
>scenarios for a continuum, combinations of words don't
Combinations of words can form a continuum if you allow for an infinite number of words.

>>9855425
Considering how aggressive he is he's probably had problems with police before and got spooked when somebody started talking about calling the cops

>>9855982
there aren't an infinite number or words though

>>9856009
your gang-stalking is something I hope you live to regret

>>9856009
His background check showed arrest and court records.

>>9856018
>there aren't an infinite number or words though
An infinite number of words in a proposition, in that case you have (number of allowed words)^(number of words in the proposition) different propositions, which is larger than the number of natural numbers.

>>9855623
>there is no x greater than infinity in R
I never claimed that. To clear up where this misunderstanding is, can you give your best precise definition of what it means for a function f: R -> R to have a limit L at infinity?

>>9856348
As it pertains to the topic of this thread:
if f(infinity)=Z
then lim x --> infinity f(x)=Z

Can you find an error in my proof? Or do you just want to talk about anything other than my irrefutable result? pic related, it's you.

>>9856358
>Can you find an error in my proof?
Yes, compute with your "proof" the limit of (x+3)/(x-3) when x->infinity.
(Protip: you can't)

>>9848835
Why did you assume the exponential function is one to one. Just because two inputs give the same output does not necessarily mean the inputs are equal.

>>9855644
Universe is deterministic in certain contexts and probabilistic in others. It is not reducible to some fundamental point.

>>9856415
>Universe is deterministic in certain contexts and probabilistic in others. It is not reducible to some fundamental point.
Totally a "no-answer", like all the other times....

>>9856415
Bullshit.
The universe is or isn't deterministic.
Copenhage interpretation: it's not deterministic.
Bohm interpretation: it's deterministic.

>>9856407
>Yes, compute with your "proof" the limit of (x+3)/(x-3) when x->infinity.
that has nothing to do with my proof, and my proof can't be computed with it.

>>9856477
the universe being mostly deterministic is a special case of it not being deterministic which deserves equal consideration

>>9856501
You're implying that the universe is non-deterministic. You're implying then that Copenhage interpretation describes accurately the quantum world.
Why isn't Bohm interpretation true then, using your logic?

We just don't know it. So don't act like if you know 100% that the universe is not deterministic

>>9856508
you're wrong. the only thing I wrote about it is this:
the universe being mostly deterministic is a special case of it not being deterministic which deserves equal consideration

>>9856524
>you're wrong
>the universe being mostly deterministic is a special case of it not being deterministic which deserves equal consideration

>is a special case of it NOT being deterministic
You're implying the universe is not deterministic. You can't say it's half deterministic, or 99% deterministic. It is, or it's not.
I get what you mean; you think the universe at quantum scales it's not deterministic (and randomness occurs; such as random decays) but thanks to decoherence principle, macroscopically things take the most "logic" way for humans (that path that particles had a 99% chance to take)
But that's just an interpretation, and it's not based on FACTS.

Why should the Copenhage interpretation be true? and why then all the other interpretations should be false?

Praise Bohm kiddo.

>>9856548
>You're implying the universe is not deterministic.
I implied no such thing in this thread.

>>9856501
>>>9856407
> >Yes, compute with your "proof" the limit of (x+3)/(x-3) when x->infinity.
> that has nothing to do with my proof, and my proof can't be computed with it.
You are dense as osmium..... I said that I want to use your definition (or, as you call it, your "proof") to compute the limit of (x+3)/(x-3) when x->infinity, not the other way around. It has EVERYTHING to do with your "proof".

The definition written in >>9855246 gives you the method to compute the limit, yours is totally useless and wrong.

>>9856548
>Praise Bohm kiddo.
Bohm is bullshit, the only right interpretation is the ensemble interpretation.

>>9857268
>the only right interpretation is the ensemble interpretation.
the only right interpretation is for you to be afraid of me and act like it

>>9857295
>the only right interpretation is for you to be afraid of me and act like it
Oh, the big man showed up..... I'm scared.... What can I do? I should run for my life.....
(If it is too subtle for you, I was sarcastic).

>>9850261
bullshit. Terry Davis actually managed to accomplish something remarkable with TempleOS, in spite of his schizophrenia

this OP is merely a victim to schizophrenia, and deluded in his grandeur

>>9855623
>scenarios for a continuum, combinations of words don't
prove it, faggot

>>9857295
Hi Jonathan, this is Special Investigator Ross of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We are taking a special interest in your case after some tips we recieved this weekend. We recognize that you are afflicted with mental illness and suggest you stop feeding your homicidal delusions on public internet forums. If you do not comply, we will have no other choice but to institutionalize you to protect the general public. This is your only courtesy warning.

>>9857539
Shit now I don't know whether to tip OP or this guy for impersonating a federal officer

>>9857295
This is not an argument. If your proof works for computing the limit [math]\sin(\infty)[/math], then the same method should work for computing well-known limits as well.

>>9857963
You are correctly able to differentiate a statement from an argument. Good for you!!!

If there is some technical hurdle that you wish to see me demonstrate then you should be more clear about what you want to see. If you write out your request with more that ambiguous terms like "your proof," and I can easily tell what it is that you want me to demonstrate, then I will be happy to do so. If you don't write enough that I can exactly tell what you want to see then I will continue to ignore you non-specific bullshit. Indeed, if you can show that something I did doesn't replicate a well-known result, then you should show that clearly, as I have done, and i will take a look at what you wrote.

So... if my result fails in some case, show what that case it. Don't just write that it does, show the steps in some decent math font, screenshot it, and put your comment's pic related.

>>9857539
I have homicidal desires, not homicidal delusions. Learn English you fucking idiot.

>>9858289
>If you write out your request with more that ambiguous terms like "your proof," and I can easily tell what it is that you want me to demonstrate
I'm only using your words, but ok. This is my request:

"Use your method to compute the limit when x->Infinity of (x+3)/(x-3)"

>If you don't write enough that I can exactly tell what you want to see then I will continue to ignore you non-specific bullshit.
Everybody but you understood what I wanted when I said "compute with your "proof" the limit of (x+3)/(x-3) when x->infinity".

>>9858446
I agree with this man

>>9858292
What happened to the thread where you posted your Georgia Tech student card and people started using sites to investigate you? Was it deleted by you?

>>9858292
How do you plan to kill everyone?

>>9858446
1, happy now?

>>9858446
>>9858476
I still don't know what you mean because you asked me to show what it means for a limit to go to infinity and then started referring to "my method". Therefore, you could be referring to the method I showed for obtaining a limit at infinity or you could be referring to the method that I used in the paper. Indeed, rather than specify, you have chosen to say, "It is obvious to everyone else," when I am telling you it is not obvious to me: the person to which you have directed your inquiry. You are being deliberately obtuse. I'm telling you it's not obvious to me so what the fuck does it matter if you and another person think it is obvious?

If you had an honest inquiry, you would cite the method you want me to use instead of continuing to refer to some method as mine when I'm telling you that I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't understand so what the fuck does matter if everyone else did when your not asking them to use it?

Also, you haven't said what kind of number x is, and without that it is impossible to even begin to address your question even if I did know which of the two methods that are "mine" in this thread is the one you would like to see me use. You are fucking retarded and you should kill yourself.

>>9858524
Maybe, I deleted some stuff when I made the mistake to go be a wagecuck.
https://paranormalis.com/threads/john-titor-the-montauk-project-the-e-cat-and-geometric-unity.12571/

>>9858538
I don't plan to kill everyone. Nice use of classically fallacious rhetoric.

>>9858594
>You are being deliberately obtuse. I'm telling you it's not obvious to me so what the fuck does it matter if you and another person think it is obvious?
At least two people agree with me: >>9857963
and >>9858476 but, as you said, that's not important.

>you would cite the method you want me to use
It is very clear, your said it in >>9856358
"if f(infinity)=Z
then lim x --> infinity f(x)=Z"
But also you can do it using the method from your paper (if it's different).

>>9858594
>Also, you haven't said what kind of number x is
That is being utterly dense.

>You are fucking retarded and you should kill yourself.
Refer to >>9857303
(I already can answer nearly everything you say by redirecting to other comments I've already made)

>>9858635
you miserable fucking piece of shit. The method you cite as "mine" isn't the method that is the topic of this thread. Indeed, this thread is about taking the limit of complex-valued functions and if you won't say if x is a real number or a complex number then you can continue to fuck off.

>I already can answer nearly everything you say by redirecting to other comments I've already made
Maybe if you answered all of it instead of nearly all of it you would have your answer by now. you still haven't said if x is a real number or a complex number, or a hypercomplex number. You've replied about ten times with whining when you could have fully specified your inquiry with a few sentences in any of them and have instead chosen to count the number of people to whom your meaning was obvious (and I bet one or both of them thought you meant the method from the paper)

>>9858658
>you miserable fucking piece of shit
>fuck off
>You've replied about ten times with whining
Nice ad hominem logical fallacies. For someone who is god, you are very fallible.

>>9858707
It's fallacy when I say you're wrong because you are a piece of shit, or when I try to deflect attention from the central point of contention by pointing out that you are a piece of shit. In fact, I merely called you a piece of shit before I directly addressed the main point of contention: you refuse to say what kind of number x is in your request for exposition: real, complex, or hypercomplex.

Your repeated citations of other things, like the obivousness to others, are all red herrings.

Now that you say say I am using the ad hominem fallacy when I am not, you are using the straw man fallacy.

And you still haven't said if x is real, complex, or hypercomplex, you piece of shit. Kill yourself to spare yourself what I will put you into.

>>9850409
So viXra is just arXiv that anyone can pub on? Thats pathetic

>>9858746
>obivousness
Is it also not a fallacy when you make spelling mistakes like this? Or is "obivousness" the correct way to spell it from now on because you are god and you don't make mistakes?

Also I'm not the person you were originally responding to, btw.

>>9858757
No, typos aren't fallacious, they're erroneous. It's completely different. I never claimed to be infallible. If you're claiming that I did then that's your own straw man.

My name is Jon. My Hebrew name is God, but no one calls me that. Jon is fine for you. When I am the victorious man who controls the final revision that they make with the time machine, then you can call me God. For now, Jon is what you should call me.

But make no mistake. I am God, the sovereign Lord almighty, and you should be afraid of me, not prodding me with stupid taunts, because in the end, I am the master of the day of judgement.

>>9858781
Just like how the proofs in your papers are erroneous? Also why do you prefix your images with trinity and cubes? I'm more interested in what cubes have to do with anything.

>>9858787
>Just like how the proofs in your papers are erroneous?
If something was erroneous in the paper then you would be able to cite the error as you have with my misspelled word. If you a misspelled word, and they are in there, that has nothing to do with the valid soundness of the conceptual piece.
>why do you do that?
because I want do, duh

>>9858796
This guy cited several errors, but you just got angry and evasive. >>9858635 Your proof doesn't work with the standard definition of a limit, and when asked if you had an alternative formulation of a limit that allowed it to work, you called him names instead of providing one.

That is your error.

>>9858781
What is your goal In life?

>>9858800
>This guy cited several errors,
if he cited one, then you would be able to cite the one he cited
>Your proof doesn't work with the standard definition of a limit
What proof are calling "my proof?"
If something doesn't work, then someone should show an example of it not working
>asked if you had an alternative formulation of a limit
if he asked that then you would be able to link to the post where he asked it

You just made up a bunch of bullshit.

>What is your goal In life?
I want to establish a kingdom.

>>9858875
>if he cited one, then you would be able to cite the one he cited
>>9855458
>>9855246
Right there^^

>What proof are calling "my proof?"
Gee, maybe the one you wrote an entire paper about? Are you deliberately playing dumb, or is this part of the cognitive degeneration from schizophrenia?

>If something doesn't work, then someone should show an example of it not working
Okay, right here: >>9855246

>if he asked that then you would be able to link to the post where he asked it
Alright, he asked it right here: >>9858635

>You just made up a bunch of bullshit.
Did I make up all those posts too?

>I want to establish a kingdom.
And how's that going for you?

>>9858875
It's not often that you get to hear from an honest-to-god insane person. I really hope you get help somehow

>>9858900
>Did I make up all those posts too?
You didn't make up those posts but you none of them contain the material that you claim they contains

>And how's that going for you?
better than it was going before I quit my job. Racking up lots of enemies to kill, like your loved ones.

If you love me, why do you watch them write these things and not agree with me in your own writings?

>>9858920
your own writing here where I can see them. Not in your private reports submitted to my enemy's servants.

>>9858911
>but you none of them contain the material that you claim they contains
And I quote:
>Ok then. Here is a simple proof that [math] \sin \theta [/math] does not converge to 0. If it did, then for all [math] \epsilon > 0 [/math], there exists an [math] x_0 \in \mathbb R [/math], such that for all [math] x > x_0 [/math], we have [math] |\sin x | < \epsilon [/math]. But this is false: pick [math] \epsilon = 1/2 [/math], so that no matter what [math] x_0 [/math] you pick, the next peak of the sin function takes the value 1.
Hrm, that looks like an error in your paper to me.
>>you would cite the method you want me to use
It is very clear, your said it in >>9856358 #
"if f(infinity)=Z
then lim x --> infinity f(x)=Z"
But also you can do it using the method from your paper (if it's different).
Hrm, that looks like him asking for your method of a limit.

So am I hallucinating? Because he clearly asked those things and you still haven't responded to them with anything more than name calling, evasiveness, and circular arguments.

>>9858911
What are you going to kill them with, your horrible papers? lmao

>>9858933
>Hrm, that looks like an error in your paper to me.
If it looks that way it's only because you're stupid.
There is no number in the extended reals bigger than infinity.

>Hrm, that looks like him asking for your method of a limit.
Kinda, but you said he "asked if you had an alternative formulation of a limit" and that is plainly false.

>So am I hallucinating
You're not hallucinating, you're just wrong.

>>9858938
Which papers are horrible and what is horrible about them?

As they watched Jesus whipped and crucified and did nothing, so too now do they watch and do nothing.

>>9847225
fpbp

>>9858943
All of them, because they are nonsense and filled with errors. Honestly the most dangerous thing about you is probably the risk of your schizophrenia becoming contagious lol. You're too crazy to harm anyone.

>>9858949
if there were filled with errors beyond trivial errata then you would be able to cite one

>>9858949
>You're too crazy to harm anyone.
I think you will be surprised at how well I learned violence during the 15 years I studied it

>>9858950
Fucking lol, do you also have memory loss as part of the schizophrenia? People have cited your errors to you over and over again in this thread.

>>9858954
if they cited one, then you would be able to cite their citation

>>9858953
Lel, and what did you study? How to attack a box of donuts? You weigh like 300 pounds.

>>9858960
Right here. >>9858635 >>9858800 >>9858900 >>9858933

>>9858962
>Lel, and what did you study?
I studied how to force my opponent in submission by the technical application of force. The concepts carry over, beyond the mat.

>>9858967
lmao

>>9858967
So you sit on them and crush them with your fat?

>>9858964
none of those posts cite an error in my work. You are wrong and stupid.

>>9858962
you are also wrong and stupid, and even though you put on a smiling face I know you regret what you did, and you know you were wrong, and you will feel bad when the consequences come around.

>>9858971
Maybe I'll sit on their children and strangle them with my fat and see how much they laugh then, or how much they laugh when I put their children into the zeta torture and have the speakers read out the transcript of this thread over and over

>>9858975
>you will feel bad when the consequences come around
Lol I am sooo scared. You make these silly, vague, and ominous sounding threats, but you haven't given me any reason to think they are credible. You'll probably respond to this with something else vague and childish lmao.

>>9858982
Oh so you fuck kids?

>>9858984
When I take my vengeance on you, that's when you'll know that they were credible.

>>9858988
Lol, how?

>>9858987
I will give them to torturers that might fuck them, and if the torturers do fuck them, that will probably be the best part of the whole ordeal. And you'll be there remembering this thread.

>>9858989
The answer to, "How?," is that I will hurt you mentally and physically until you submit to my desire to hear you acknowledge that they were.

>>9858993
And how many times have you been able to do that? Zero because you're a fatass lmao.

>>9859002
Lol, more vague """""threats""""". Stay in school sweetie.

>>9859005
I don't see what's vague about it.

>>9859003
If you get the last laugh then congrats to you but I think I will get it and the thing I laugh at is going to be worse than name calling.

Even just a few months ago, there were somethings that I thought, "No, I wouldn't do that to even my worst enemy." I've learned a lot since then, and i suspect the whole thing I'm supposed to learn from all of this is that there is no limit to how much I should make you suffer.

>>9859012
Lol, how?

You see... no matter how much you guys are bots or how much you guys already got tortured, somewhere back there behind you is a group of cowards who don't want to see their children mutilated and psychologically tortured before their own mutilation and psychological torture begins. That group of people has acted without prudence.

>>9859014
I'll leave that to the experts, many of whom I count among my best friends.

>>9859046
>"""the experts"""
oh no no no no
look at this dude

>>9859049
>look at this dude
yes, please do. Here's me and my grandparents.

here's me and some of my other relatives

>>9859040
>>9859046
>>9859060
>>9859063
lmfao, embarrassing

if you can't find work, maybe you should start marketing your mental illness as a comedy routine

>>9859068
What makes you think I'm looking for work?

>>9859072
You had better be if you want to keep your internet connection lol. Though personally I hope it gets shut off

>>9859077
I'm going to shut off the connection of your family to the vine of life.

>>9859081
Lol, good luck. God I can't wait until you can't post here anymore.

>>9859077
>>9859081
>>9859084
lmao you have a good response for that one do you, schizo? say bye-bye when your internet gets cut off, crazy

>>9859077
>>9859081
>>9859084
lmao you don't have a good response for that one do you, schizo? say bye-bye when your internet gets cut off, crazy

>>9859136
what about when I cut off the testicles of the men and boys that you wanted to propagate your line?

>>9859262
No amount of mentally ill internet tough-guying is going to change the fact that you're going to lose your internet connection soon.

>>9858658
>you miserable fucking piece of shit
Hello, I'm back..... And I will take that as flattering.

>The method you cite as "mine" isn't the method that is the topic of this thread.
The actual topic of this thread is your incoherent rambling, your lack of knowledge and laughing at those two things.

>the limit of complex-valued functions
And, what are real-valued functions if not a particular case of complex-valued functions? If your method doesn't work for them, you method (and you) is useless.

> if you won't say if x is a real number or a complex number then you can continue to fuck off
If you knew something about maths, you would know that the limit of (x+3)/(x-3) when |x|->infinity (notice that now is the modulus of x, not x itself, now x lives in the complex numbers) is the same independently of the argument of x. Therefore you want to introduce a distinction that IS NOT NECESSARY HERE.

>Maybe if you answered all of it instead of nearly all of it you would have your answer by now.
I'm quoting previous comments I've made because EVERYTHING you keep asking is already answered.

>You've replied about ten times with whining
Pot to kettle.

>when you could have fully specified your inquiry
Again >>9857963 >>9858476 and now also >>9858800 >>9858900 >>9858933 >>9858964 Not only me and another person, but nearly every person after I posted my inquiry agree that it was totally clear.

>Kill yourself to spare yourself what I will put you into.
So much flattering.... You shouldn't have to....

>My name is Jon. My Hebrew name is God
Then, if somebody is called "Jon Jonah Jameson", would that means that he is two times God?

>>9858800
>>9858933
Thank you, my friend. I'm glad that somebody took my work when I was away. Talking with somebody that dense is too tiring.

>>9858908
>It's not often that you get to hear from an honest-to-god insane person
That's why is too funny to talk to him.

I'm back again, let's continue with your bullshit...
>>9858941
>There is no number in the extended reals bigger than infinity.
That means that you didn't understood the definition of limit explained in >>9855246. Hell, even the original poster (which wasn't me in this case) told you that in >>9856348 and you gave your stupid, useless and wrong definition of limit.

But, hey... Why should you answer some valid criticisms when you can criticize a strawman of them?

>You're not hallucinating, you're just wrong.
No, you are just evading the question with ad hominem.

>>9858953
>I think you will be surprised at how well I learned violence during the 15 years I studied it
How many times do I have to refer you to >>9857303 before you understand it?

>>9859009
>I don't see what's vague about it.
Everything?

>>9859068
>maybe you should start marketing your mental illness as a comedy routine
That's the reason why I keep coming here...

you will regret it, or someone you cared about will regret that you wrote it, or someone behind your software will. I promise.

>>9860015
>you will regret it, or someone you cared about will regret that you wrote it, or someone behind your software will. I promise.
I'm tired of referring you to >>9857303....

>>9860054
I'm not tired of telling you that you'll regret it. And if I start pointing out that the only reason you make these posts is because you or someone behind you is quite afraid of me and desperate to project an aura of confidence, an unconvincing one at that, then I won't tire of that either. In fact, the more I say the sweeter I assume it will be when I prove it.

>>9860092
>you or someone behind you
Nope, only me.

>is quite afraid of me and desperate to project an aura of confidence
Nope, I only wanted to see how you do a simple limit with your method, but I decided to stay for the lols.

>then I won't tire of that either
I'm only tired because you are repeating yourself, but apart from that I'm still laughing.

>the more I say the sweeter I assume it will be when I prove it.
You have been dodging the question for two days.... I'm pretty sure that you are not going go compute the limit. But I'm going to repeat it:

Compute the limit when x->Infinity of (x+3)/(x-3). Do it with the method you want and with x being whatever you want (as I told you, the limit should not care if you are doing it on the real or on the complex, and in the complex is independent of the direction in which you reached infinity). I can't be more lax about it.

>>9860133
>>you or someone behind you
>Nope, only me.
That's a yep then, idiot. It's not a nope. It's exactly what I said it is.

>>9860193
>That's a yep then, idiot. It's not a nope. It's exactly what I said it is.
Yes, you are right, I should have cropped the "you or" part. But you posting only that further proves that you are dodging my question about limits (like you have been doing for two days).

>>9860206
>Yes, you are right,
I know.

>>9860209
Ok.... A great example of "You give her an inch she takes a mile"....

I admitted my tiny error, but it is easy to see that you will never answer my question about the limit because it will prove that all your "research" is a total bullshit.

>>9860222
the limit is equal to one. How does that imply an error in my derivation?

>>9860270
>the limit is equal to one. How does that imply an error in my derivation?
Finally.... An answer..... After two days of asking for it..... But you didn't showed your derivation, so I can't accept your answer, sorry..... I don't know if you computed the limit using x real, complex or "hypercomplex", nor the method you used....

Also, another question: If you say that you "are God because your name is Jon", would that means that somebody called "Jon Jon Jonson" is more than a god? Two or three times god? I would say "two times god and descendent of gods", but I prefer to hear your "well researched answer".

>>9847226
>>9848787
>>9849396
>>9857295
Why are you so ugly?

>>9860288
This limit is something you would learn in the first week of calculus one. I took x as a real number and I used the method that appears in the first chapter of any calculus textbook. The method I used is in the picture. How does it show that my paper is wrong?

>If you say that you "are God because your name is Jon",
I didn't say that though so why consider the hypothetical case instead of the definite case in my paper?

>>9860303
That method in your picture is literally wrong. Infinity over infinity is an indeterminate form.

>>9860303
Using the same method:
[math]\lim_{x \to \infty}\frac{x^2 + 3}{x - 3} = \frac{\lim_{x \to \infty} x^2 + 3}{\lim_{x \to \infty} x - 3} = \frac{\infty}{\infty} = 1 [/math]

>>9860397
it's not wrong, it gives the right answer. that shortcut is valid when the exponent in the numerator and denominator is the same. I did it the long way here, how does it imply an error in my paper?

>>9860303
I'm back.

>This limit is something you would learn in the first week of calculus one.
And, even that you got it wrong, as >>9860397 and >>9860401 say.

>>9860463
I didn't get it wrong. I got that it was equal to one which is the correct answer. And you didn't show how it implies an error in my paper.

>>9860459
>it's not wrong, it gives the right answer
"Even a broken clock give the right hour twice a day".

>that shortcut is valid when the exponent in the numerator and denominator is the same
As >>9860397 and >>9860401 have told you, what you wrote in your previous post was completely wrong. But what you have written in this one is the right way to do it. Just look at the pictures, the method is completely different, you dense crank.

>I did it the long way here
What You Have Written Here Is Not The Same As What You Wrote Before.

>how does it imply an error in my paper?
The problem is, for the moment, with the naïve definition of limit you gave in >>9856358. Which does not work, for (x+3)/(x-3) gives you the infinity/infinity indetermination, you dense pseudogod.

>>9860473
>Which does not work, for (x+3)/(x-3)
If you look in that post you linked, I said, "As it pertains to the topic of this thread" which is the limits of sine and cosine at infinity, not the fraction you wrote, which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I didn't say, "This is it in all cases" I said "This is how it pertains to the topic of this thread" You are wrong, and stupid.

>What You Have Written Here Is Not The Same As What You Wrote Before.
yes, that's right. I used the informal shortcut in the first post, and then I did it the formal way. They both give the same answer and are equivalent when the exponents are the same on top on bottom.

>>9860484
>I used the informal shortcut in the first post
That is not a formal shortcut, that is plainly wrong. If you apply it to (2x+5)/(9x-7)=infinity/infinity=1 (actually it's undetermined, but I'm following your method) , not the 2/9. The infinity don't care about the 2 and the 9. You are utterly dense.

>>9860484
Why do you have to be a such a faggot? Why can't you be a cool schizo mascot for /sci/ like Terry is for /g/? You're an embarassment to this board.

>>9860516
This

>>9860484
Whatever

>>9860623
Not whatever: you're wrong and you need to admit it. You are not god, nor are you "the greatest physicist who has ever lived", nor are you even a real physicist, nor are you even capable of doing high school level math.

Be nice fellas.

OP, it's not clear to me what's going on in your papers. It's ok to be wrong you know, everyone is wrong sometimes, even if it's hard to admit it. It doesn't mean you're a bad or unworthy person.

>>9860695
He has these narcissistic delusions because nobody has ever been willing to stand up to him and tell him they're bullshit. He's not going to become a functioning member of society until he's forced to quit being such an arrogant prick.

>>9860638
Using a shortcut to solve a trivial limit does not imply an error in my paper. You still haven't been able to point out any error in my paper and keep arguing over semantics.

formalism improved, the first equality in
>>9860459
is true via the first equality here.

Look at this OC. It's the extended real line. The endpoints are +/- infinity, and there are no more points after the endpoints.

sin (inf) = inf
ha

Why do they cite the mathematical nit-pickiness like I'm a pure mathematician? I am physicist, and this paper about sine and cosine is a work in mathematical physics. Everyone has heard in physics ten million times, "The mathematicians say we can't do this but we just do it anyway." Hypercomplex analysis is toolset developed for applications in mathematical physics. Since solutions to everything in physics are described with sines and cosines, it is no poor evidence of the method's feasibility that a result such as this should fall out. But for me, then, even though the counter argument fails miserably, they just ignore me.

>>9860786
Who are you talking to, schizo?

>>9860783
it is equals that in the translated coordinate
y+ = infinity - y

You know the "b" in
y=mx+b

that shifts the line up in linear algebra? It's the same as the "y+" equation except with two "y"s
m=-1
b=infinity

I mean... it's just basic linear algebra.

>>9847222
I knew it. A fucking schizo. Only schizos post crypto bullshit like this thread.

>>9860795
Thoughts on niggers?

>>9860837
not many

>>9847222
[math] \sin{0}=0=\sin{\pi} [/math]
[math] 0=\pi [/math]
Really makes you think doesn't it

>>9860846
Do you hate them?

>>9860852
makes me think about a natural parameter pi on the extended real line.

Do you think that they looked at my ~160 undergraduate hours and saw that the real linear algebra course I never took was the major deficiency in my mathematics studies and then just started parroting, "He doesn't even know linear algebra?" FYI, I took two years of algebra in middle school and one year in high school, and my dad would give me algebra problems to do in my head even before that. I know the basics of linear algebra pretty well.

>>9860862
I hate everyone who is wicked. Call them whatever you want.

>>9860884
You are wicked. Prove me wrong. Protip: you can't.

>>9860888

>>9860902
Why are you so ugly?

>>9860717
No, he has these narcissistic delusions because he has a severe untreated mental illness.
He will argue with you indefinitely and you're never going to accomplish anything except trolling (if it even counts as that) an insane homeless man for hundreds of posts.

>>9860936
He's going to stay untreated until he wakes up to the fact that he's losing his mind. The best way to do that is to tear down his delusions IMO.

Good thread.

Love ya Jon

>>9861412
You need antipsychotics. Your brain is being physically damaged.

>>9860786
>Why do they cite the mathematical nit-pickiness like I'm a pure mathematician?
Because using the correct formalism is always important.

>I am physicist
No, the only thing you are is DENSE.

>"The mathematicians say we can't do this but we just do it anyway."
Nice strawman you have here... It would be a shame... If somebody shows some example of the opposite https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2714 (arXiv, where real articles live. The opposite of viXra, as the name suggests. I know that you aren't used to that.....)

>>9860795
>that shifts the line up in linear algebra? It's the same as the "y+" equation except with two "y"s
You know nothing about affine linear spaces.

>>9847222
reminds me of a song
https://youtu.be/5NY7a9kMvPY

>>9852310
>even though he proved his theories in brilliant math that could not be attacked
He provided an interpretation, not a theory. It can't be tested, it's just another way of thinking about quantum physics.
A retarded, over-complicated way.

>>9861418
thanks

>>9861685
>He provided an interpretation, not a theory. It can't be tested
There is no problem with talking about interpretations of QM. The problem is that many of the so called "interpretations of QM" are just "philosophical gibberish". And MWI is one, of those as it provides no way to perform computations: doesn't give a mechanism for the splitting of the worlds, don't specify in how many branches they split, when the splitting is created....

However, there is a particular for of rule this interpretation out (although it make no predictions): probabilities should appear as "number of worlds with desired outcome"/"total number of worlds", which is a rational number. This is a contradiction with the probability being continuous, as showed by Copenhagen interpretation (or directly by experiments).

>>9860786
>"The mathematicians say we can't do this but we just do it anyway."
No, the mathematicians say that you haven't given justification as to why you can do it. The reason physicists "just do it" is because it produces the correct answer. What is truly not allowed is to "just do" something that gives you the wrong answer.

>Why do they cite the mathematical nit-pickiness like I'm a pure mathematician?
Because the work OP cites has you claiming to derive limits of classical mathematical functions and using arguments that look like mathematical arguments (as opposed to, say, featuring principles from physics).

Here's the deal. Do you want to be taken seriously by mathematicians? If so, you're going to need to use the formalism and deductive logic of math. If you don't properly define things (or your proofs don't hold up), then the general math community is going to ignore your work. Even established mathematicians need to have their stuff understandable to the community at large before it is taken seriously (see Mochizuki).

On the other hand, if you don't care about serious mathematicians, then why have you gone through with creating something that looks like you do? What was the purpose of this write-up? I honestly don't understand who you're writing this for.

>>9861877
Mathematicians always criticize the rigor of physicists and I don't see why that's a big deal in my case. I do see why... it's just that the reason I see is stupid.

>>9861937
What you want is the fame and respect of a mathematician without the hard work and the effort.

>>9852301
i think you are right
nonlinear autonomous differential equations are at the kernal of the final answer
nonlinear dynamics and chaos is the currently inchoate study that will eventually encapsulate all things.

>>9856358
>if f(infinity)=Z
>then lim x --> infinity f(x)=Z
opinion discarded

>>9862511
>hurr durr infinity is not a number

Why can a thread like this exist but when I try to offer clear description of the process used by Johann Bessler to exploit a rotational path subject to specific knot theory, the improper rotation of Jacobs ladder, the gradually diminishing inverse leverage available within the non optic pseudovector, and the angular momentum of a descending mass the thread gets pruned?

>>9863332
If you are not stupid, I just handed over how to "perpetuum Mobil"; literally "through stepping" motion.
Stepthrough motion is real.
And very simple.
And I can demonstrate it.

>>9862525
>>hurr durr infinity is not a number
It is actually not a real number nor a complex number, that's why you have to add it by hand if you want to construct their Alexandroff one-point compactifications.

>>9863338
Go on

>>9847222
FUCK YOU THIS IS MY IDEA
IM WILLING TO COLLABORATE
Where the fCUk am I supposed to publish if facebook owns my posts, reddit owns my posts, publishing on 4chan is retarded, what am I supposed to do to claim credit for a theory.

Stop samefagging Jonathan.

>>9864217
>facebook owns my post
>reddit owns my posts
I own my posts. Anyone who disagrees is sentenced to death.
Just because they say, "Clicking here means you agree," that doesn't make it so. I don't agree and I never did.

>>9864240
Wrong, retard

>>9864217
>facebook owns my posts, reddit owns my posts,
Because your posts are shit.

>publishing on 4chan is retarded
"Everyone is retarded except for me".... Maybe you should re-evaluate your premise and consider that maybe... Just maybe.... YOU ARE WRONG (and your way to compute limits suck).

>I supposed to do to claim credit for a theory.
You "theory" (because it's not even a theory) is also shit.

>>9864242
I am not wrong. I am right.

>>9864245
Wrong

>>9864217
>publishing on 4chan
I wanna see that

>>9864247
>Wrong
You saying it doesn't make it so. The fact is: I don't agree and I never did.

>>9864243
Who shit in your soup?

>>9864249
Wrong

>>9864279
I don't agree and I never did.

>>9864360
Doesn't mean you're not wrong

>>9864193
What do you want to know? To me it is simple but it took five days of singular focus to dig into the history far enough to have all the pieces. Literally, the only person who fully understood in the few moments it takes to describe it works for the NRC. The response was simply to state " you need to do something with this. ". I am pretty sick of people who don't have the aptitude to grasp it passing cursory judgment(especially when they are gleefully deleting threads).
It's basic element is a set of two weights. The path is a loop that returns a weight to any point on the path after two full rotations. The two weights are connected. They switch places each turn. A connector with a spring holds the weight of one of the two masses on the descending side as the two masses ascend. Etc. I can get more specific if you are following.

>>9864193
I'm not wrong and I'm not guessing

>>9847222

I am losing my mind

>>9864384
It means I'm right about not having agreed.

>>9864576
No it doesn't

>>9864596
It does though. I am the authority on what I did, not you.

>>9864609
Actually, that is not how reality works. You intend. They perceive. Wishing you have a certain character is not equal to the other fellows perception of you.

>>9864609
And now that I've read the thread to know what you were talking about, I can offer the insight that they own the platform. They really do. It's up to them to keep it running. And all of the content is their responsibility to maintain. You added some data to their database and now they are burdened with the caretaking of it. If they can not afford to continue to provide the platform to you, what do you suppose will happen? Are they obligated to provide services to you that they can not afford? Are you offering to help with the financial responsibility?
I've put as much as 8 years of painstaking effort into a platform owned by someone else and at the end of the day, it's their gig, I've just been indulging in creating data that they have been able to maintain. A change in their financial circumstances and all bets are off.
If you feel you have an interest in something in their data, keep copies of your contributions; you may take the images with you to some other platform.

>>9864641
>You intend. They perceive.
That means I agree or do not agree, and that they perceive some state of agreement. Their perception doesn't affect what my action was.

>>9864663
Am I obligated to care that they don't have a sustainable business model? No, I'm not, and I don't.

>>9864691
You are mistaken

Could you point me to the definition of [math]\Phi^n[/math]? Can't find it, even in the refs.

>>9864240
Whether or not you agree in thought is irrelevant.
What matters is you clicked.
Clicking is an outward display of agreement.
A bystander seeing you click would be unable to tell you did not agree in thought.

Yes up to the formatting, psycho or not it looks right

Have you considered that people will never take someone who thinks they are god seriously? You could just pretend to be humble if you really want people to listen

>>9864776
You are wrong, and I am the judge of what is wrong and right, not you.

>>9864822
>Clicking is an outward display of agreement.
you saying that doesn't make it true. Me saying that I didn't agree does make it true. The thoughts of a bystander are irrelevant, as is the opinion of anyone else who didn't ask me, "Do you agree?"

>>9864801
reference 2, page 4, final paragraph

>>9864925
People have been taking God seriously for thousands of years.

>>9865069
>reference 2, page 4, final paragraph
Your definitions are shit Jonathan, and that's because you don't know math (as your way of computing limits shows).

>>9865167
I wonder if you were looking for a mathematician's rigorous definition where I, a physicist, have used a physicist's working definition.

>>9865527
>physicist's working definition.
Stop bullshiting us Jonathan, you despise rigor because doing things the right way will prove that your "theories" are crap.

>>9865553
Why not make a regular compliment instead of a back-handed one?

>273 replies

>>9865585
>Why not make a regular compliment instead of a back-handed one?
Because your paper doesn't deserve it.

>>9865051
No you're not

>>9865650
You maintain you position and I'll maintain mine, and later we'll see whose children get tortured until one of us concedes to the other.

>>9865716
I hear that clorox has special properties that enhance godlike powers and provide infinite insight into the secrets of the universe. You should try some, OP

>>9865051
>I am the judge of what is wrong and right, not you.
You are a false god, and you should perish under my Godly powers. Your theories are corrupted and your mind is wicked.

>>9865716
>later we'll see whose children get tortured until one of us concedes to the other.
Jokes on you, everyone in /sci/ is a virgin.

>>9865716
Brainlet

>>9865716
You belong in a straightjacket, locked away in a mental institution.

>>9865928
>his opinion of violence is bad for me
>put him in a straight jacket!

>>9866207
Who are you quoting?

>>9866207
It's time for your crazy shots sweetie

>>9866207
>>his opinion of violence is bad for me
>>put him in a straight jacket!
That's what people usually do with someone that threatens to murder children.....

op is going to burn and suffer in eternal hellfire for being a false prophet

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

>>9866252
have fun shrieking for the next million years as you're burnt alive

>>9867116
you are blaspheming god's name

repent, agent of satan

>>9866252
Cringe lord

>>9847222
>at Infinity
pass me with that shit

>>9867372
GTFO antichrist

>>9868102
God, and I mean the real God, will punish you for mocking him.

>>9868186
>God, and I mean the real God, will punish you for mocking him.
He has already been punished with the mockery of his paper here. Because he have proven that he don't even know how to compute simple limits >>9860303.

>>9868186
>>9868339
His punishment is madness and having his mind destroyed by schizophrenia.

>check out my website
>http://2occatl.net/arXiv2.html

>>9868592
Fuck off Satan.

>>9864691
They are not obligated to acknowledge that you exist when they take their platform offline forever. And as this happens, no one is obligated to care how you may be affected.
It's pretty clear that you either have an unusual sense of humor or... you may be somewhat mentally 'challenged' .

>>9847222
It's 1.

This thread is not gonna die on my watch

>>9870703
>This thread is not gonna die on my watch
Don't worry, the fun will not end as he is spreading his nonsense to other threads >>9870227.

>>9872242
Nonsense.

>>9872435
I tell you: When I ask you, "Why did you make that post," and you answer, "I was doing it for money," that is not going to have a redeeming or absolving quality for you.

>>9872651
Can I join in on this LARP?
What if you swapped out infinity with infinitesimal?
The equation then would be (e^i∞/1)+1=√2

>>9872651
>When I ask you, "Why did you make that post," and you answer, "I was doing it for money," that is not going to have a redeeming or absolving quality for you.
Because it's very funny to see your mental breakdown..... I have to admit that I still laugh at you saying that you descend from Hitler and the Romanov.... The part where you threaten children was also funny.

>>9872826
>The part where you threaten children was also funny.
I'm really shocked nobody has tipped the FBI about this
Threatening violence is one of the few exceptions to free speech
Just look at that kid who got 6 years in prison for saying in Runescape that he was going to kill kids

>>9848835
exp(z) isn't bijective on complex numbers, brainlet.

>>9848835
>>9873470
The thing about that is when you use the argument of the complex number 0<Arg(z)<2pito build a field theory where the phase is only an envelope function on the real-valued, observable part of on-shell field excitations, these are the complexity reducing assumptions :2npi i=0

>>9873012
>I'm really shocked nobody has tipped the FBI about this
Don't worry, the "FBI" is already on the track >>9857539, that's why this thread is so funny.

>>9873750
I have seen Atari games less pixelated than that image.