/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9886732
How do I become someone like you?

>>9886761
be a pathetic pseud that shills his junk work on Tibetan knitting forums

>>9886761
maybe if you earn the rewards of heaven

>>9886732
Nigger lover

>>9886761
You can only be like him if you descend from Hitler and the Tsars.

>>9886732
>vixra

Fuck off.

Why are you wasting their server space with something you're never going to publish?

Just upload it to your own site or Google drive and post the link.

>>9886732
[math] \frac{1}{e^{x^2}} [/math]
Just testing.

I start to think that nazis were right to kill all schizophrenics.

>>9887521
If OP is both a nazi and a schizophrenic (and Hitler's great grandchild apparently), then does that mean he should self-exterminate?

>>9887505
It is already published though

>>9886761

Just have massive delusions of grandeur and you're set.

>>9887837
>It is already published though
Publishing in viXra doesn't count

>>9886761
Give up on collecting a paycheck and move home, declaring yourself disabled

>>9887909
>declaring yourself disabled
But he is mentally disabled.

>>9887837
no it's not

>>9887837
You are schizophrenic. Prove me wrong.
>protip: you can't

>>9886732
Fuck off John. How many more times do you want us to put it in your butthole?

>>9887896
>>9887918
you are wrong

>>9887988
you can look at the ultimate source of that lie, which was a hearing in which a doctor told the judge that she diagnosed me as schizophrenic because I thought I had some great theory that I thought wasn't getting recognized because of the government's bullshit. Therefore, if I can prove that I do have this great theory and that it isn't being recognized because of the government's bullshit then, despite your protip, I will have proven that the diagnosis was erroneous, not that I would even need to because the only people who would believe I am mentally unwell would never be receptive to reason in any case. Therefore, I can do it and it is only a matter of whether or not I have. In that regard, I have, so I proven that the diagnosis was erroneous, and that is qualitatively like proving that I am not schizophrenic. Furthermore, I will prove that everyone who subscribed to that lie was unwise to do so because it resulted in the death of everyone in their family. I have not proven second point yet, but I plan to ASAP.

>>9888000
Do you ever think that my anus is too high on the list of things that are really important to you?

>>9888149
it's not published in the sense that any academic will take seriously. you would get more attention writing it on the wall of a bathroom stall

>>9888149
>a doctor told the judge that she diagnosed me as schizophrenic because I thought I had some great theory that I thought wasn't getting recognized because of the government's bullshit
Of course.... It's not because you threaten to torture children....

>if I can prove that I do have this great theory
But your theory is crap, therefore you are a schizo.

>In that regard, I have, so I proven that the diagnosis was erroneous
You can't do that if you are not able to compute simple limits.

>>9888149
>Therefore, if I can prove that I do have this great theory and that it isn't being recognized because of the government's bullshit then, despite your protip, I will have proven that the diagnosis was erroneous
There was your mistake. Your ""proof"" got BTFO in the last thread as being faulty. I guess it's time to come to grips with your schizophrenia, holy fucking kek.

>arguing with a schizophrenic person
why do you people give him attention? it's clear he won't admit it, so simply ignore him. the only thing you should do is to tell other people that he's mentally ill. just say anything else, simply don't argue with him.

>>9888208
>just say
*just don't say...

>>9888199
>It's not because you threaten to torture children....
that is absolutely not a symptom of schizophrenia

I did prove my theory is correct, very many times, and more recently I have done it a way that people who only middle school algebra skills can full comprehend. You are wrong, and you insisting that I am wrong is likely going to cause you pain later, and it will be something you regret.

>>9888204
>Your ""proof"" got BTFO in the last thread as being faulty.
You saying that doesn't make it true.

>>9888392
There is no simpler way to put it: the equality statement implied by the equals sign in your equation is false. e^ix does not converge as x approaches infinity. There is no room for argument because the premise of your proof is so foundationally false. It's like saying the sky is green, which is clearly false, and then saying nobody has successfully proved the sky is not green when people tell you that you're wrong.

>>9888400
Your critique of the mathematical rigor continues to ignore that the shortcut notation works. Add this statement if you want to, "Let it be how it is described to be." You say, "It doesn't apply in the nonlinear case!," but I did not use the shortcut notation for the nonlinear case. You are erecting a straw man with your red herrings.

>>9888768
Holy fuck you are retarded. Try computing the limit of e^ix manually for increasingly large values of x and see for yourself if it converges to 1. You will find that it does not and that your proof is wrong.

>>9888768
You claim that e^(i*infinity) + 1 = 2, but if we do some simple algebra we get:
e^(i*infinity) + 1 - 1 = 2 - 1
e^(i*infinity) = 1
ln(e^(i*infinity)) = ln(1)
i*infinity = 0
i*infinity/i = 0/i
infinity = 0

Explain to me how infinity can be equal to zero. That is an irrefutable flaw in your proof. By your own admission in >>9888149, if there is a flaw in your work, you must admit to having schizophrenia and seek treatment.

>>9888787
>increasingly large values
I calculated the values at infinity though. There is no point beyond the endpoint of the extended real line

>>9888904
>Explain to me how infinity can be equal to zero.
you can do it with a translated conformal coordinate, pic related

>>9888906
Calculate the limit as x approaches infinity from zero. Post results about whether or not it converges.

>>9888922
No you can't, that doesn't make sense. I have proved your claims false because infinity does not equal zero. You must now hold up your end of the bargain and seek treatment for schizophrenia.

>>9888149
Publishing something on VixRa is basically one step *below* publishing it on your personal blog.

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

has the property that a point
y=0

is the same point as
y+=infinity

and vice versa

>>9888994
Now you're just making shit up. What's the point of doing math if you redefine everything as an axiom? You might as well redefine 2+2 to be a special case and equal to 5. Pathetic.

Is OP the smartest man alive?

>>9889011
Fuck off Jon, quit samefagging.

>>9888935
>>9888999
What do you expect form a person who don't know how to compute simple limits (pic related)?

>>9888904
Although I agree with you about the schizo's claim to be stupid, your proof is flawed. The logs can be in different branches, so you should write ln(1)=2*pi*k with k integer.

>>9888906
>>>9888787
>>increasingly large values
>I calculated the values at infinity though.
You still don't know how limits work.....

>>9888963
>Publishing something on VixRa is basically one step *below* publishing it on your personal blog.
That is the truest statement I've ever seen.

>>9889389
Hi, 4chan. Brainlet here.
What exactly is wrong with his method of computing the limit? Is it just the weird infinity/infinity step?

>>9889417
>Is it just the weird infinity/infinity step?
Indeed. If you do if, for example, with 2x+3/(x-3) you get again infinity/infinity. If you do it "in the schizo's way" you get 1 (because up and down you have the same, infinity), but it's actually 2.

>>9889011
He is the most retarded man alive

>>9889437
>If you do if, for example, with 2x+3/(x-3) you get again infinity/infinity
wrong and stupid

>>9889417
it is that step, but it's not weird. Doing it either way is totally equivalent and they always give the same answer when the exponent of infinity is the same on top and bottom. It's these idiots who don't know how to take a limit when they refuse to acknowledge that either method always gives the same answer for equal exponents of infinity. In this case, infinity is raised to the power of one on top and bottom.

>>9889963
>wrong and stupid
How do you interpret 2*infinity if infinity is "the endpoint of the extended real line"?

>>9889963
Is the answer right? Yes it is.

Did the method produce the right answer? Yes, it does.

Does the method always produce the right answer? Yes, always.

Are there unrelated cases in which the method cannot be used? Yes, indeed.

Does he know how to take a limit? Yes.

Would he have gotten full marks from a professor if he did it that way on an undergraduate calculus test? Depends, probably not if the guy whose criticizing him was the grader.

Would he have written it out the long way if it was for an undergraduate exam? Not if the teacher had authorized the use of the shortcut notation.

>>9890027
>How do you interpret 2*infinity if infinity is "the endpoint of the extended real line"?
I don't interpret it. I apply the steps that produce the correct answer in all cases, and then I interpret the answer. If I was going to weigh in with an interpretation, I would interpret 2 times infinity/infinity being equal to two times one.

I totally concede that the method is informal, we physicists do stuff like this all the time.

You should concede that the method gives the correct answer in all cases, always. You should also concede that this point of nuance has nothing to do with the result in the paper because I actually calculated the values of sine and cosine at infinity and used that to deduce their limits.

>>9890045
>You should concede that the method gives the correct answer in all cases, always.
No, because infinity is not equal to zero. You literally had to redefine infinity to be equal to zero, which is preposterous. You are doing the equivalent of saying 2 + 2 = 5. You are wrong and too pompous to admit it.

>>9888149
>Furthermore, I will prove that everyone who subscribed to that lie was unwise to do so because it resulted in the death of everyone in their family. I have not proven second point yet, but I plan to ASAP.

no one has addressed this? yeah, don't do that man

OP has been proven wrong three different ways now.

1. symbolically, his method of taking the limit at infinity is flawed
2. numerically, e^ix does not converge to 1 as x approaches infinity
3. algebraically, his proof is flawed because infinity does not equal zero

To a sane person, any one of these would have been proof enough, but OP is not sane.

>>9890045
>I don't interpret it.
So.... Let me translate that: "Infinity is the endpoint of the extended real line only when it's in my interest, if it isn't I can define larger numbers".

> I would interpret 2 times infinity/infinity being equal to two times one
Somebody doesn't know what an absorbing element is....

>>9890180
He has been threatening children since he appeared here, we are used to that already.

>>9890193
OP absolutely, positively, utterly, eternally BTFO. Let's hope he never returns.

>>9890180
>don't do that man
I am going to be the master of the day of judgement.

>>9886732
∞ −(∞) = 0

looks good to me

>>9891218
thanks

>>9891218
>>9891223
Stop samefagging.

>>9891234
This isn't even a good enough thread to warrant samefagging.

When they say, "He is insane to threaten the children," they don't like to admit that it's targeted ridicule, not random, that I am responding to, and they are carrying out their acts of ridicule in a heretical manner. It is blasphemous to misuse my name, and yet they do it every day.

>>9886732
>What's the difference?

>>9891315
Seek treatment before it's too late.

>>9891324

> all these posts calling him wrong
>none of them providing any mathematical reasoning or proof of how he is wrong

looks like the OP has won

>>9891406

>>9891406
>>9891408
Jonathan, you can't avoid the truth by prentending to post as other people. We proved you wrong here >>9888787, here >>9888904, and here >>9890193.

>>9891425
>We proved you wrong here
you lie

>>9892074
Watch this:

Assume that [math]\lim_{\theta\to\infty}\cos(\theta) = 1[/math]. Because the sequence [math]\{\cos(\theta)\}_{\theta\geq0}[/math] is convergent, we need to have that every subsequence [math]\{\cos(\theta_k)_{k\geq1}[/math] is convergent and converges to [math]1[/math]. Now choose [math] \theta_k = (2k+1)\pi[/math] for every [math]k\in\mathbb{N}[/math]. Then we have for every [math]k\in\mathbb{N}[/math] that [math]\cos(\theta_k) = -1[/math]. Therefore
[eqn] \lim_{k\to\infty} \cos(\theta_k) = -1,[/eqn]
contradicting that [math]\cos(\theta) = 1[/math]. We conclude then that [math]\lim_{\theta\to\infty} \cos(\theta) \neq 1[/math].

>>9891404
Your response helps inform 'what' understanding exactly?

>>9892691
I developed a complex quaternion q^z = q^pi + q^Phi that has eight components, and one of them is the identity. Forthcoming paper tomorrow. It's a good one.

>>9893132
please kys

>>9893132
>I developed a complex quaternion q^z = q^pi + q^Phi that has eight components, and one of them is the identity.
Too late, a construction is already know and is called "Cayley–Dickson construction", you dense dumbass.

>>9893794
Yes, you guys must be aware by now that we are all interested in the Octonion associative division capabilities, right?

>>9893132
>image attached

>>9893132
can you please look at this video and tell me what you see?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0

Thank you Tooker, I've had a solid 10 minutes laugh thanks to pic..... You are so dense....

>>9888199
>But your theory is crap, therefore you are a schizo

I dont know if thats a legitimate way of diagnosing scizophrenia my friend. But if it is, I am scizophrenic as well. I was thinking about this theorem that all the roots of the zeta function are at real value 1/2 and came up with a proof that you cant prove it, because its too powerful. But i realize my proof is just handwaving crap and i didnt study math enough to understand whats going on, so i stopped pursuing it.

But still, I hope im not scizophrenic... My mother is scizo and it has been a legitimate fear of mine.

>>9889437
wait, if you take the derivatives of each, you get 2/1. Is that the value at infinity?
Is this lhopitals rule or is lhopitals rule less powerful ?

>>9886797
>knitting

Croche, we here have class.

>>9894784
>I dont know if thats a legitimate way of diagnosing scizophrenia my friend.
Read his comment before and you will understand it >>9888149

>>9894787
>Is this lhopitals rule or is lhopitals rule less powerful ?
That is actually L'Hôpital rule.

Guys, I opened up a high school textbook and I understood I was wrong, sorry for the confusion haha
Have a great day !

>>9894745
Is this his new paper?

>>9896321
Does that mean you're finally going to get treatment?

>>9897113
>Is this his new paper?
No, is from 2016. He didn't delivered what he promised.

>>9897113
>>9897191
Here is the new one:
>Time Arrow Spinors for the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1807.0454

You'll notice, or refuse to notice, that the energy in my theory is the same as the energy in the experimental data I describe.

>>9897179
How is The Lord untreated?

>>9897179
>Ssshhh, genius is working