/sci/ - Science & Math

Math, not even once

>tfw you will never win a fields medal

>>9908199
Oh, no...... Not again.....

>>9908199
Dude, just stop. If you want to become a successful researcher then you'll have to get treatment for your schizophrenia first.

>>9908654
You infidels, your fate awaits.

>>9908875
It's your choice man. You can either be an insane homeless person that sleeps in garbage, or a successful scientist that everyone loves. It all depends on whether or not you're willing to get treatment.

>>9908937
It's your choice to make me, the most successful living scientists, hate you. You will regret it.

>>9908966
>me
>scientists
is this about you
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/67920.Sybil

>>9908966
Not him, but seriously dude, seek help. You surely have more to offer the world than this.

>>9908985
I am seeking help. Why aren't you helping me?

>>9909021
None of us are psychiatrists: you need medical treatment.

>>9909064
Not for schizophrenia, to get these implants taken out of my body maybe

>>9909079
There are no implants: you have severe schizophrenia that is rapidly getting worse, causing you to imagine these things.

>>9909082
How can you tell there are no implants? I could feel the metal cylinder implanted in the side of my anus at the place where I kept feeling electrical shocks. That's my evidence. What is your evidence that there isn't one?

>>9909115
>I could feel the metal cylinder implanted in the side of my anus at the place where I kept feeling electrical shocks.
I rest my case.

>>9909115
Schizophrenia causes false perceptions and false memories. Don't you think it's kind of coincidental that every single person you come into contact with tells you that you have schizophrenia? Perhaps that is because you have schizophrenia.

>math
>science

>>9909115
What scientific purpose of this implant, if you said a BCI or something it might be believable

>>9909115
What is the scientific purpose of this implant, if you said a BCI or something it might be believable.

>>9909126
Perhaps you guys say that because you are incentivized to do so.

>>9909151
what makes you think it has a scientific purpose? I don't think it has one, i think it is malicious only.

>>9909175
>Perhaps you guys say that because you are incentivized to do so.
Answer me this: has anyone ever told you that you don't have schizophrenia?

>>9909234
Indeed, right before I went into the hearing I asked the doctor, "Do you think I'm schizophrenic?" She said, "No," and then in front of the judge she dropped it on me like, "He's paranoid schizophrenic, Your Honor, and he is a danger to himself and others." She did it because she wanted me to have an outburst about her bullshit in the hearing. I did not, and the judge agreed with me that I should not be locked in an insane asylum.

>>9909257
So the psychiatrist said you were schizophrenic (but wouldn't admit it to you because she was concerned about your proclivity for violence), and the judge also agreed that you are schizophrenic, but not at the level that necessitates you being institutionalized yet. Also you keep referring to this trial without giving us more details about it. What were you accused of?

one day....

>>9909280
It was a hearing, not a trial, learn to read. My mother and father, because they hate me apparently, made up some lies about violent threats against the private residence of the governor of Georgia, and then they put it into a mental health affidavit, the police took me to the insane asylum and I had to have a hearing to get out. Everything they put in the affidavit was a lie. The doctor said I was schizophrenic not because I had any symptoms of schizophrenia, but rather because I thought I had this great theory and that it wasn't getting recognized due to the government's bullshit.

Evil people do exist. Some of them have children. Two of them signed that affidavit that got me locked up.

>>9909257
>>9909175
>>9909115
>>9909021
>>9908966
>>9908875
>>9908443
>>9908199
>I'm not an insane homeless man because somebody told me I don't have schizophrenia once
1) Get help
2) Leave
3) Never come back

>>9909319
Actually it looks like that one time she lied because she was afraid for her personal safety.

>>9908199
You're not schizophrenic. You're just a shit mathematician that has failed to grasp basics, and you can't accept your utter failure and uselessness.

>>9909330
At least I didn't fail in the thing that is most important to me. How about you? What string of successes led you to become my heckler?

>>9909356
You did fail, though. Your work is illogical and irrational.

>>9908199
you should consider some basic rules, like
" the limit is taken as the complex number z approaches z0, and must have the same value for any sequence of complex values for z that approach z0 on the complex plane"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomorphic_function
also learn your rules for limits and convergent series

>>9909363
If that was true then you could identify a logical flaw and an irrational statement.

>>9909524
>>9909524
>consider some basic rules
That is the exact rule I considered in my paper

>>9909530
But there's no point in that, because you'll just claim "I'm not a mathematician, I'm a physicist so my math doesn't have to make sense" like in every other thread.

>>9909530
People already have. But instead of admitting that you are a retarded faggot, you plugged your ears and yelled "NO IT'S NOT! IT'S BRILLIANT YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND MY WORK LALALALALALALA!"
Either you have serious mental problems, or the most brilliant troll in years.

>>9909558
>like in every other thread.
If that was true, then you could link to where i said that

>>9909577
>IT'S BRILLIANT YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND
If it was that then your friends and family would have nothing to worry about from me.

>>9909613
sure, I'll dig through the archive for you

>>/sci/thread/S9847222#p9860786
> 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."

>>9909838
that doesn't say what I denied saying.

>>9909882
Do you take any meds? and can you link me your blog please?

>>9909887
I've been known to smoke a few meds from time to time, but nothing psychiatric or prescription if that's what's you're getting at.
http://2occatl.net/
http://2occatl.net/splittingofthetimes.html

>>9909894
Substance abuse is another common symptom of schizophrenia, btw.

>>9909895
post a link reference to that factoid, I don't believe it.

>>9910008
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181760/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10881208
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia#Substance_use

Take your pick.

>>9910128
causes and symptoms are not the same dummy

>>9908199
Why you suddelnly changes the limits?
eq(20) z->0
and y+ means an approach of y to 0 in the positive side

[math]0<y^{+}<0.001[/math]

and you suddenly

[math]y^{+}\rightarrow\infty [/math]

it makes invalid your definition at eq(20) z->0 implies that y is also limit to 0 not infinity

Hi guys, newfag here. This thread is confusing the hell out of me... Is OP actually schizophrenic? What's all this about? Thanks in advance

>>9910139
Read the articles.

>>9910182
He's posted multiple threads now where he either threatens to murder children or claims to be god. He's like a lame, evil version of Terry from /g/.

>>9910191
just like /sci/ is a lame version of /g/ these days

>>9910191
Terry wouldn't hurt children and is actually competent in what he does

ayy

>>9909317

But you make violent threats all the time. It's not hard to imagine you making violent threats against the private residence of the governor of Georgia.

>>9911773
>those in 2011 should suffer, those who got me expelled from college over my serial raping. When I was suspended for two semesters, two times in two weeks for two different rapes, I was banned from campus with revoked student status, and I would have to reapply without my fellowship, loans, waiver, or assistantship; I was expelled in effect. Since I have no money, it is as impossible for me to get back into college in the wake of their actions as it would be if I had been formally expelled instead of merely exceeding the three semester suspension limit which kicks you out of the university, my own suspension being for four semesters.

Dudes a literal rapist to top it all off.

>>9911841
jfc, source? hope OP gets sent to prison

>>9911773
Yeah but imagining it and signing and affidavit that says you heard me say it are two totally different things. I never said it! When Helene began badgering me one day about my life, "What are you gonna do? What are you gonna do?," I made an off-hand comment, "Maybe I'll take a hammer downtown and smash a public facing window on a state building, at least that would get my name in the news." Then she said I was going to to go the governor's house, dash past the armed guards who might kill me, and attack his private residence. Helene is nothing but a liar. I don't know is she is schizo but she does have hysteria and pathological sadism. Joe signed the affidavit too, I don't know what his deal is. He made it sound like she was twisting his arm, not that that's a god excuse.

>>9911841
>Dudes a literal rapist
serial rapist. one rape wouldn't have terminated my student status.

>>9909533
this is a retarded board, thanks for trying though

>>9912463
Maybe one day one of the other scientists in the world will acknowledge the truth.

I hear:
this is a retarded board, sry
this is a retarded university, sry
this is a retarded preprint server, sry
this is a retardedpeer-reviewed academic journal, sry

Where are the non-retards and how can I get in touch with them? How can I put to death the children of whoever it was that said I should live my life in a bubble full of retards? If I among those children, which is highly likely, how can I determine who found my parents' favor while I had their scorn and then brutally annihilate the people in those families? I know the answer to most of these questions, the answer is that I need to get in touch with the other educated people.

>>9912494
>Wants to be in contact with smart people
>Hurr durr i'll kill your fucking kids
Maybe they are smart enough to rightfully tell you to fuck off.

>>9912503
The other smart people, for the most part, also want to see me scour the scum of my enemies from the face of the Earth. In fact, the billions of people who profess to worship the God of Abraham are eagerly awaiting the coming of the messiah/mashiach/madhi who will fulfill God's promise to slaughter the children of the wicked for the sins of their ancestors.

I'm not alone here: killing their children is righteous. God is good, and that is what he has promised to do... just like me.

>>9912524
You're in Arizona, right? You should move to a colder climate so that you freeze to death while you're out on the streets this winter. I hear Fargo gets pretty cold.

>>9912560
I doubt that I am in Arizona. I got detained trying to leave the country last year and i'm not sure I have left detention yet. When I look around, however, it appears that I am in Atlanta. However, I would need to check area 51 to see if they have a fake copy of Atlanta built out there.

Remember when there was the "travel ban" lat year and then that woman Yates quit her job that night? That was the day I quit my job and bought a plane ticket to Israel.

>>9912575
Bruh you're starting to sound like that guy from /x/ who an heroed

>open thread
>vixra.org
>close thread
>hide thread

>>9912621
this guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee3bld4lTG0&t=47s

>>9912628
No, the one who said he married an alien and then jumped off a building IRL

>>9909533
But do you?

For every [math]\alpha\in[-1,1][/math] we can construct a subsequence [math]\{x^\alpha_n\}[/math] such that [math]\sin(x_n^\alpha)\to\alpha[/math]. Therefore [math]\sin[/math] can't converge, so what is your problem?

>>9912668
sin(inf)=0 ==> lim x->inf sin(x)=0

This is just like:
sin(0)=0 ==> lim x->0 sin(x)=0

Even though your sequence thing is true, we can still take the limit at zero. If your sequence doesn't stop us from taking the limit at zero, then why would it at some other number?

>>9912674
infinity is not a number

>>9912675
If you weren't tarded, you would say which number system doesn't include infinity. Also if you weren't tarded, that number system would be the one whose numbers I used in my analysis
>complex analysis is wrong
>sqrt(-1) isn't a number

Hey OP, what happens when you try to tickle yourself? Are you able to tickle yourself?

>>9912707
>Are you able to tickle yourself?
Only when I'm being extra silly.

>>9912718
What do you mean? How hard is it to tickle yourself?

>>9912773
I am very ticklish, and it is easy to stimulate an over-sensitized sensation with my fingertips, but it would be pretty difficult to bestow upon myself a fully zesty tickle like can be bestowed by another.

>>9912674
>If your sequence doesn't stop us from taking the limit at zero, then why would it at some other number?
Because for every sequence [math]\{x_n\}[/math] such that [math]x_n\to 0[/math] we also have [math]\sin(x_n)\to 0[/math], so these two cases are not comparable. Convergence implies convergence in every subsequence, and we don't have that when taking [math] \lim_{x\to\infty} \sin(x)[/math], so we can't have convergence, you see?

>>9912816
circular logic, replace lim to 0 with inf:
>for every sequence [math]\{x_n\}[/math] such that [math]x_n\to \infty[/math] we also have [math]\sin(x_n)\to 0[/math]

>>9912890
But that is not true

>>9912890
>>for every sequence [math]\{x_n\}[/math] such that [math]x_n\to \infty[/math] we also have [math]\sin(x_n)\to 0[/math]
Ok, what about the following sequence [math]x_n=\frac{(4n+1)\pi}{2}[/math]?
You can check that [math] \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x_n=\infty[/math] and [math]\sin (x_n)=1[/math] for all values of [math]x_n[/math]. Therefore, \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \sin (x)=1 [/math].

>>9912946
I want to know what John has to say about this as well

>>9912946
>>9912985
when n=inf, then your sequence has a number in it
(inf+pi/2). Why do you say that inf is not a number but (inf+pi/2) is a number? You are totally stupid how you are picking and choosing which rules to use. I picked the extended real numbers because they include inf as a number. What number system do you use that has (inf+pi/2) as a number?

Pic related, its the extended real line. The endpoints are +/- infinity and there are no more points after the endpoints. The extended real line ends at infinity, so your sequence which contains (inf+pi/2) is not a sequence of extended real numbers, and is therefore not relevant.

So you have said, "Infinity isn't a number," but what you meant was that it isn't a real number. I say, "Infinity is a number in the extended reals," and now I challenge you identify what number system contains (inf+pi/2). Even if you do that, it is irrelevant because my analysis regards the extended reals. Not only that, but you are doing exaclty what you told me wasn't allowed earlier.

>>9912985
It's Jon
>J
>O
>N

>>9913025
Wrong. Including the point at infinity compactifies the real line, but not in the way you are visualizing. The true compactification of the real line with infinity is isomorphic to the unit circle.

>>9913025
>Why do you say that inf is not a number but (inf+pi/2) is a number?
inf+pi/2=inf. Somebody don't know how hyperreals work.

>Pic related, its the extended real line. The endpoints are +/- infinity and there are no more points after the endpoints.
Somebody don't know how Alexandrov's one-point compactification works.

>>9913032
Somebody DOES know how Alexandrov's one-point compactification works.

>>9913042
>Somebody DOES know how Alexandrov's one-point compactification works.
And it bears absolutely no relation to what you just posted before googling the topic I brought up. Dumb fucking faggot pseud cancer motherfucker. Why haven't you killed yourself yet, you absolutely worthless, obnoxious piece of shit?

>>9913059
Take it easy Jon

>>9913062
Who's Jon? I just want this cancerous self promoting faggot moron to off himself, so I don't have to see his irrational stupidity permanently in the catalog.

>>9913065
Jon is the OP

>>9913071
Oh. Well I'm not Jon, but I am suggesting that Jon should khs for being a complete failure at everything.

>>9913072
Then why are you insulting the other guy here >>9913042 ?

>>9913076
>Then why are you insulting the other guy here >>9913042 (You) ?
That's what I'm wondering....

>>9913076
Mistaken identity. I didn't look for "The Lord" faggotry, but now that I'm re-reading that guy is agreeing with me. Sorry guy.

>>9913032
>>9913042
We need The Lord to reply to these posts.

>>9913078
>Sorry guy.
Don't worry. It can happen to the best of us.

>>9913025
In the meantime, another sequence, this one is better than the previous one:
[math]x_n=\frac{n\pi}{2}[/math]
You can check that [math] \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x_n=\infty[/math] (and this limit doesn't "have a number in it"), but the value of [math]\sin (x_n)[/math] depends on n. As this sequence DOESN'T converge to any value, [math] \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \sin (x) [/math] doesn't exists.

>>9913032
It is just like the way I have visualized it. Not sure if you know, but the whole point of my research problem is lines can be wrapped around cylinders to form circles.
>Modified Spacetime Geometry Addresses Dark Energy, Penrose's Entropy Dilemma, Baryon Asymmetry, Inflation and Matter Anisotropy
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0022

>>9913042
>inf+pi/2=inf
If you use this, then the sequence does converge to zero, so I am surprised that you acknowledge this. The last infinity terms of your sub-sequence are all infinity, and sin(x_n)=0 for all of them.

>>9913099
>this sequence DOESN'T converge to any value,
You are using the conclusion of your argument as evidence for why your argument is correct, and that is evidence for why you are stupid.

>>9913466
None of your "work" addresses any of those things. The illogical ramblings of a stupid faggot with zero understanding have nothing to do with anything in physics, but they do make a convincing case for why you should FUCKING KILL YOURSELF YOU HACK JOKE.

>>9913466
>It is just like the way I have visualized it.
But your way of visualizing it is wrong. As many people have pointed you. The compactification of the real line with infinity is isomorphic to the unit circle.

>If you use this, then the sequence does converge to zero
>The last infinity terms of your sub-sequence are all infinity, and sin(x_n)=0 for all of them.
Why? Because you deluded mind says so? NO. I have proven you that it converges to 1 because [math]\sin (x_n)=1[/math] when you substitute [math]x_n=\frac{(4n+1)\pi}{2}[/math] for ALL VALUES of n. But you are too dumb to accept that.

>>9913477
>You are using the conclusion of your argument as evidence for why your argument is correct
No, as you have said
>for every sequence [math]\{x_n\}[/math] such that [math]x_n\to \infty[/math] we also have [math]\sin(x_n)\to 0[/math]
But for sequences like [math]x_n=\frac{n\pi}{2}[/math] or [math]x_n=\frac{(4n+1)\pi}{2}[/math] this is not true, therefore [math] \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \sin (x) \neq 0[/math].

>and that is evidence for why you are stupid.
Says the one that is not able to admit that he is wrong....

>>9913742
>None of your "work" addresses any of those things.
Hence the title of my paper. I didn't use convergence to show my limit. I showed sin(inf)=0, and then deduced the limit.

>>9914139
>my work doesnt address X, Y, and Z
>that's why I called my paper "W addresses X, Y, and Z"
I am at a loss as to how so many mental gymnastics can be performed to avoid accepting an obvious, rational conclusion: you are a FRAUD loser with zero to contribute to any knowledge, and you relentlessly shit up the catalog with the same garbage thread as soon as the previous one dies.

>>9914139
Jon it's fine to admit you're wrong sometimes

>>9914758
What I do to you guys later is going to be a lot better than fine!

>>9914139
But we need convergence for the limit to exist, you’re just making up stuff that doesn’t make any sense at all.

>>9913477
you say it converges, he showed it doesn't. You didn't address this

>>9915089
>you’re just making up stuff that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Read pic and laugh. He has been doing that all his live.

>>9915115
>You didn't address this
He will spit some bullshit about it, don't worry. He is reaching Comăneci-like levels of mental gymnastics.

>>9915115
He didn't show it. He said it.

>>9915566
Oh, would you look at that? It doesn't converge for the first 50 powers of 10. Who could have guessed?

>>9915616
What does it doe for the infinitieth power of ten, which is the one related to my result? 10^50 is not even 1% of the way to infinity.

>>9915566
>He didn't show it. He said it.
Hahahahaahahahahahaha, that's the worst excuse I've ever seen.....

>>9915628
It doesn't matter: if it was going to converge then it should have already shown some tendency toward convergence, not random fluctuation. You don't understand basic analysis. You get that e^ix is periodic like sine or cosine, right?

>>9915659
>if it was going to converge then it should have already shown some tendency toward convergence
in your opinion you mean

>>9915668
>in your opinion you mean
"I know how convergence works but my stupid and wrong computation is so important for me that I'm not going to acknowledge that it doesn't make sense".

>>9915668
No, according to the standards of mathematical analysis. If your ramblings exist outside the framework of mathematics, that's completely fine, but don't try to tell people that your bullshit is math.

Also here is the """convergence""" plot for e^ix for the first 300 powers of 10. I would go higher, but floating point numbers can't represent anything larger than 10^300. See how it doesn't tend toward any particular value as x increases?

>>9915674
my result does converge. Your sub-sequence doesn't contain infinity and is therefore irrelevant to the "convergence in every sub-sequence" definition. I don't know if you know, but the subsequence in the convergence test has to contain the end of the parent sequence.

>>9915678
>standards of mathematical analysis
those standards say the sub-sequence needs to be at the end of the limiting sequence, not the beginning. Idiot.

>>9915678
>See how it doesn't tend toward any particular value as x increases?
see how pic related says e^i*inf=1? My pic is more analytical than yours.

>>9915760
Fine, then show us its numerical convergence. We'll sit here and wait. Rmemember: the onus is on you to prove your claims (which you haven't done thus far).

>>9915778
Damn, you are the greatest troll in the history of 4chan. Keep up the schizo routine, these aspies are really falling for it lmao.

>>9915778
>zero is equal to infinity
Nope.

>>9915566
>He didn't show it. He said it.

wtf does that even mean? he formally proved it

>>9915795
It doesn't say zero equal infinity. I says
y+ = inf - y'

Are you familiar with the fundamental equation of linear algebra: the equation of a line?

>>9915802
If you think there is a formal proof in one of his posts, then cite that post and I will show you, again, why his remarks do not amount to a proven refutation.

>>9915804
I'm still wondering how the fuck you can say [math]\infty - \infty = 0 [/math]. By that logic

[eqn] \lim_{x\to\infty} \left( 2x - x\right) = \lim_{x\to\infty} 2x - \lim_{x\to\infty} x = \infty - \infty = 0 [/eqn]

>>9914960

What? Publish another vixra paper?

>>9915808
if you are troll, I respect your dedication

existence of [math] \lim_{x \to \infty } \sin (x) [/math] implies that for every sequence [math]x_n[/math] that tends to infinity also [math]\lim_{n \to \infty } \sin (x_n) [/math] exists and is equal.

>>9913863
gives you a sequence that shows contradiction with what you say.

>>9915824
Torture. In the entire arc of the history of the universe, you are those superlative infidels doing it to my face and i will give you your epic place in history. Also, infidel means "unbeliever" so I think you will see what I'm getting at when you say, "I don't believe you.

>>9915864
Address this >>9915818 please

>>9915864
What a sad, fat little man.

>>9915778
>see how pic related says e^i*inf=1? My pic is more analytical than yours.
[math] \infty -(\infty -1) \neq 1[/math] Somebody don't know how absorbing elements work.

>>9915818
>I'm still wondering how the fuck you can say [math]\infty - \infty = 0 [/math]
Because for him the logic in math doesn't exists. Look at another of his articles on pic of >>9915239 and laugh.

>>9915835
>gives you a sequence that shows contradiction with what you say.
You are wrong.

>>9915935
dude

>>9915935
I'm impressed by your resilience, Jon. Anyway, calculate the limit

[eqn] \lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{3x+1}{2x+1} [/eqn]

with your method. You can't do it.

>>9915908
>wondering how the fuck you can say ∞−∞=0
Consider the property of an arbitrary real number X:
X-(X-1)=1

Now consider the analytic continuation to the extended reals. It produces the result with which you struggle.

>>9915935
>You are wrong.
1. You still don't know what an absorbing element is.
2. You are changing the sequence at eq. 5, therefore your "proof" is not valid.
3. In case you don't like point 2, what about the sequence [math]x_n=\frac{n\pi}{2}[/math]?

>>9915942
What method are you referring to as mine? If the method doesn't work, demonstrate that it fails.

>>9915943
And then why is the limit in my post not consistent with the usual limit? You're basically claiming with this that [math]\lim_{x\to\infty} x = 0[/math].

>>9915950
Well what definition of convergence/limit are you using? Because it clearly is not the same as the usual definition.

>>9915946
>changing the sequence at eq. 5
I didn't change the sequence. Based on detractor's statement of equality, the sub-sequences are equal.

>>9915942
I already tried that, pic related is how he compute limits. Laugh at it.

>>9915951
>>9915951
>And then why is the limit in my post
I don't know which post is yours so it is hard to tell.

>>9915953
>Well what definition of convergence/limit are you using?
The way I derived the limit in the paper was calculate f(z) and then say it is the limit of f(x) as x -> z

>>9915955
>I didn't change the sequence. Based on detractor's statement of equality, the sub-sequences are equal.
Yes you are, because the elements for finite n are different.
Also, I like how you don't address point 3 in >>9915946

>>9915935
[math] n \in \mathbb{N} [/math] not [math]\mathbb{*C}[/math]

hows the implant today?

>>9915958
That's how I compute limits when the exponent of x is the same on the top and bottom of the fraction. It always produces the correct answer in the case in which I use it, and you are stupid to say, "He will also use the brief notation when it is not allowed."

>>9915959
>The way I derived the limit in the paper was calculate f(z) and then say it is the limit of f(x) as x -> z

Okay so you would say:

[eqn] \lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{3x+1}{2x+1} = \frac{3\cdot\infty + 1}{2\cdot\infty +1}. [/eqn]

However, as you say, there is no number larger than [math]\infty[/math], so the above numbers would not exist. Therefore the fraction, and thus the limit would not exist. But using the usual definition, that limit clearly does exist. Now can you already tell where you have gone wrong?

>>9915867
>>9915818
I am thinking about this.

>>9915958
based

>>9915942
Just pretend I did and got the right answer. Then you said\
>but you didn't absorb the numbers into infinity, WEH! WEH! WEH!

and then I said
>No shit, if you do that you don't get the right answer. "My method" always produces the right answer, and therefore the method that produces the wrong answer is not mine.

>>9915987
>Just pretend I did
No, we are not going to pretend that because this limit is impossible to calculate using your definition of limits. Also I'm not the guy who's talking about absorbing things into infinity.

>>9915964
If you don't include infinity as the greatest integer then you are not working in the extended reals. That's like not including sqrt(-1) as the imaginary number and then disproving complex analysis based on its non-existence.

>>9915987
he's losing it

>>9915971
>That's how I compute limits when the exponent of x is the same on the top and bottom of the fraction.
Hahahahaahahaha. NO, with that method the limit from >>9915942 gives 1, not 3/2, dumbass.

>>9915976
>I am thinking about this.
That's because you don't know how absorbing elements work.

>>9915993
did you even pass CALC1?

>>9915975
Limit is equal to 1.5. I got it exactly right.

>>9916008
Show your work

>>9915991
Where did I define a limit?

>>9915995
no it doesn't. check your arithmetic

>>9915818
>[eqn] \lim_{x\to\infty} \left( 2x - x\right) = \lim_{x\to\infty} 2x - \lim_{x\to\infty} x = \infty - \infty = 0 [/eqn]
I'm very interested in how "The Lord" answer to this problem.

>>9916017
show. your. work.

>>9916011
[math]\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}\dfrac{3x+1}{2x+1}=\dfrac{3\infty}{2\infty}=1.5[/math]

>>9916023
But [math]3\cdot\infty[/math] is larger than [math]\infty[/math], isn't it?

ITT: "The Lord" finds out why mathematicians needed to define the notions of "convergence" and "limit" in the first place.

>>9916023
>3\infty
How can you have that number if infinity is the largest number according to you?

>>9916018
me too, this has my interest and I need to think about what it means.

>>9916024
but 1.5 is the right answer isn't it? I have conceded many times that this notation is not-totally rigorous, and is only a trick that always produces the correct answer.

>>9916031
1.5 is absolutely the right answer, the point is that your method both contradicts existing mathematics and your previous post here >>9915935 so really how reliable and sound is your method actually?

>>9916037
What is the contradiction?

>>9916045
You are using a number larger than infinity here >>9916023

>>9916037
>the point is that your method both contradicts existing mathematics
the method isn't used to corroborate existing mathematics though. The method is used to calculate a limit with less steps than the method which corroborates existing mathematics

>>9916048
No I didn't. 1.5 is less than infinity.

>>9916045
>maybe if I play dumb they will go away
Absolutely pathetic. Also you still haven't answered how it was possible for the implant you hallucinated to have been extracted without you knowing it, while you were still awake, and without leaving any evidence of surgery.

>>9916056
You still haven't explained why you think that happened.

>>9916055
>No I didn't. 1.5 is less than infinity.
Yes, but [math]3\infty[/math] and [math]2\infty[/math] are larger than infinity.

>>9916063
In the example I have argued against, the number bigger than infinity was the final output of the computation, not an intermediate step written solely to save space on the page.

>>9916078
>In the example I have argued against, the number bigger than infinity was the final output of the computation, not an intermediate step written solely to save space on the page.
No, the number bigger than infinity was also an intermediate step in that computation, in the same way you have written [math] 3\infinity[/math] instead of [math]3\infinity+1[/math]. The final answer in the example you argued against was also finite, as it only cared only about the sine of the sequence and not the sequence itself.

>>9915864

Torture is much more welcoming than your threads.

>>9916093
You are still wrong and stupid. I can avoid the issue by writing out all the steps of taking the limit. He (you likely) cannot avoid the issue unless he writes the sequence as I have done. When he writes it like that, then it shows the correct convergence.

>as it only cared only about the sine of the sequence
Exactly. he needed to take sine of a number bigger than infinity.

>>9916271
>he needed to take sine of a number bigger than infinity.
Lest one miss my point, I didn't need to divide those numbers to get my answer. He did have to take the sine of his number to get his result.

>>9915946
>1. You still don't know what an absorbing element is.
hypercomplex analysis puts a hat [math]\hat\infty[/math] to cancel absorption, and only for that reason.

>>9915946
Regarding the two number lines that seemingly appear when infinity is included as a number, one entire real line attached to each end point, I think this reference is relevant:
>Infinitudinal Complexification
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1608.0234

>>9915818
>>9915867
This issue was raised to attack the self-consistency of the framework of hypercomplex analysis, and rightly so. To address the self-consistency of hypercomplex analysis, I point out that we put the hat on the symbol that denotes infinity, and this cancels the absorption which is the issue at hand.

>>9916635
I see, but how do you define [math]\widehat{\infty}[/math]? In the last line we have the equality

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

so they appear to be equal. Also, in this way we would have

[eqn] \lim_{x\to\infty} x^2 = \widehat{\infty}^2 [/eqn]

or not?

>>9916271
>Exactly. he needed to take sine of a number bigger than infinity.
No, because the limit on the sequence is taken only after computing the sine, not before, dubmass. Therefore at no point the limit of the sequence is needed, only the limit of the sine of the sequence.

>>9916635
>I point out that we put the hat on the symbol that denotes infinity, and this cancels the absorption which is the issue at hand.
Let's try that:
1. Proof that [math] \hat{\infty} =\infty [/math].
This is your pic, so I'm not going to repeat it.
2. Proof that [math] 2\hat{\infty} =\infty [/math].
With your notation it can be shown that [math] \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} (3x-x)=2\hat{\infty} [/math], but we already know the correct answer to be infinity, so [math] 2\hat{\infty} =\infty [/math].
3. Contradiction between point 1 and 2.
In point 1 it is necessary that [math] 2\hat{\infty} - \hat{\infty}=\hat{\infty}[/math]. But we have already proven that both are infinity, thus the difference should be zero according to you. Therefore there is a contradiction.

>>9916061
Well, because you said so right here:
>>9909079
>>9909115
>>9912655
>the one I could feel with my finger is gone now, and I no longer experience electrical shocks in that shallow part of my anus.
In the course of a day, you claimed to have an implant which you asserted wasn't a hallucination, and then within the same day it magically disappeared. You have yet to account for how that could have happened without the """implant""" being a hallucination due to your schizophrenia. This routine where you play dumb in order to avoid criticism is very childish and honestly does more to harm your credibility than just being forward about discussion.

>>9917250
Your death will be slow, and I will be glad to see you humbled, and I will be glad to see the dead children who cannot propagate the culture you hold dear.

>>9917005
infinity hat is defined to control the order of operations as shown.

>>9917228
the limit of the sine, according to the definition of convergence, is that it is the sine of the limit.

>Let's try that:
If you follow the order of operation in the pic you get the right answer. You didn't, and you did it wrong on purpose, and that's why you got the wrong answer.

Post yfw you realize you can control implants lie these and make retards like OP asselectrified with an arduino and 10 dollars of shit from digikey

>>9917747
>infinity hat is defined to control the order of operations as shown.
"I define infinity hat in a way that I'm always right, period. Why is that so hard to understand?"
As you said, there is nothing beyond infinity and you say that is wrong to write [math]\infty + \frac{\pi}{2} [/math], but you can write [math]\infty^2 [/math] with no problem despite being larger because it suits your stupid "method".

>the limit of the sine, according to the definition of convergence, is that it is the sine of the limit.
Prove it.
Also, I like how you don't address the second point, but I imagine that the answer will be the same as before "because you define infinity hat to be right".
By the way, I'm still waiting for your answer on the sequence [math] x_n=\frac{n\pi}{2}[/math] that you conveniently forgot about.

>>9917774
>still waiting for your answer on the sequence
>>9916523

Skimmed through it, he just defines infinity in a way that makes him right
The (2) equation is also not really valid ; to prove/compute differentiation at a point in R^2, you need to approach it from ALL POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS, not just from x->0 & y = 0

>>9917834
I mean, he acknowledges it but he should stop right here
It's not hard to see that z* is not differentiable ;

Also the writing y+ = inf - y- makes no sense in normal math.

>>9917834
>that makes him right
it sure does!

>The (2) equation is also not really valid
Eq (3) does that, as I am quite sure you know.

>>9917841
>writing y+ = inf - y- makes no sense in normal math.

SYMBOL_1 = SYMBOL_2 - SYMBOL_3 makes perfect sense in "normal math." It is the equation of a line.

>>9917847
You can't throw inf in your calculations like that
He pokes at it when he says it's equivalent to
1 + 2 + ... = -1/12, because the writing to the left does not converge, and as such, algebraic manipulations on it lose meaning

He goes on to make such algebraic manipulations on (8) & (9)

>it sure does!
Yes, you can bend the rules of math to prove your identity but you'll usually lose precious elements/just create a contradictory/weaker form of math
It's like Wildberger, sure his math is "consistent" but it's just so weak without the epsilon-delta tools.

>we will first modify the definition of z
I can prove anything too if I choose the right axioms

>To motivate what will be presented, consider the requirement that adjacent branes in the MCM unit cell (figure 1) are always connected [2]. For example, the Ω-brane lies beyond the spacelike infinity of the H-brane but the MCM crank is cranked when some link between them is broken from H and then rotated about Ω such that the free end of the connection is reconnected to ℵ or O. This happens one or two more times to give a final pivot about ℵ leading to a reconnection on the time-advanced H-brane, which is H2 in figure 1. The reader’s familiarity with the MCM is assumed

Loads of complicated words that say "I pulled this out of my ass, trust me it's correct just check [obscure ref]" if you're doubtful

>>9917856
>sure his math is "consistent"
But it isn't, when its convenient for him [math] 2\infty=\infty [/math] but it's not convenient [math] 2\infty \neq \infty[/math].

>>9917833
>>still waiting for your answer on the sequence
Because that is not an answer, that is a wordsalad filled with the same inconsistencies of your other answers.
I love how you say "I would have to come up with my own additive operation", it's like saying "I'm going to do whatever I want because I can't admit that I'm wrong".
Let's see... In this case [math] 2\pi \infty=\infty[/math], but in >>9916023 you don't do that (because, of course, you wouldn't get the correct answer).
And, finally, if you want to define [math]x_{\infty -n}=\infty - \frac{n\pi}{2}[/math], but obviously when you take the limit, using the logic you proposed before, you get [math]\infty - \infty=0[/math] so your new sequence don't go to infinity but to zero. Therefore you are computing sin(0) with your new redefined sequence instead of sin(infinity).

>>9917860
I was talking about Wildberger which is a skeleton with stronger bones than the author of this paper.
I did not care to read it in more detail, the intimidation section with the MCM unit cell is enough to classify this as a vanity "I am very smart" paper

>>9917856
>You can't throw inf in your calculations like that
Why?

>>9917875
Because algebraic manipulations are not really defined with infinity in mind.

Addition on N, multiplication on N are (roughly) defined with cardinals of finite sets.
In a short way, you make an association between a natural integer x and a set X with

x = card(X)

You define a + b = card(A U B) with A, B disjoint sets
a*b = card(A x B) [Cartesian product of sets]

Z is constructed via symmetrisation of N for + ; the operations stay the same
Q is constructed via symmetrisation of Z for *
R is constructed usually by adding limits of Cauchy sequences
C can be constructed by giving R2 the structure of a field

In all cases, the operations are still defined at the basic level with operations on the cardinals of finite sets ; operations with infinity have to be specifically defined

And it's the customary definition that x + inf = inf for all x

Therefore, (8) should read :
1 = y' = inf - y+
"y+ = inf - 1"
y+ = inf

End of the line

>>9917883
>Because algebraic manipulations are not really defined with infinity in mind.
That is not true at all, my intention to develop the field of transfinite mathematics with my own contribution of hypercomplex analysis very much has infinity in mind. In fact, it is not possible to do transfinite mathematics without infinity in mind.

>customary definition
That has nothing to do with the definition which constitutes the framework of analysis which you criticize. Furthermore, one would be quite stupid to say that the customary definition of infinity from finite analysis is also the definition in the transfinite analysis. The main purpose in developing the transfinite definitions, such as the order of operations around eq. (8), was to circumvent the absorptive property which you cite as problematic. Indeed, if we do not reject the absorptive property of that symbol then it is impossible to consider the transfinite. Since the whole point of the exercise is to consider the transfinite, it follows that the definition in the paper, not the customary one, is the relevant one.

However, I do concede that the framework breaks down if you use inconsistent definitions from other, irrelevant systems of analysis. The point that I wish to argue is that the framework of transfinite analysis is self-consistent, not that it is consistent with irrelevant and contradictory definitions from finite analysis.

>>9917737
Great, but that *still* doesn't answer where the implants you hallucinated went. Where did they go Jon? How did they magically disappear from your body?

>>9917951
>My system is not like others
At least you admit it

I'm not sure where & how you defined x + inf though
I say "customary definition" because that's what I found in the Rudin, which uses it as an economy of notation ; you can work with infinity if you're concerned with very general and abstract situation where you never have situations of the following forms :
inf - inf
inf/inf

Because those are not defined in their general form, unlike inf + x and x*inf ; such situations have to be looked at with epsilon-delta memes in a case-by-case basis

>my intention to develop the field of transfinite mathematics with my own contribution of hypercomplex analysis very much has infinity in mind
lamo
Learn to walk before you run, define properly your meme system before adding infinity like a retard

>>9917972
>How did they magically disappear from your body?
If you want me to answer this question then you first have to explain why you think that happened.

>>9917974
>I'm not sure where & how you defined x + inf though
I disagree. You have cited the definition and eq. (8) and chosen to say "This is not the customary definition," and I think that shows that you have recognized it as the definition reported in the paper.

>defined in their general form, unlike inf + x and x*inf ;
The order of operations is defined, look around eq. (8) in the paper and you will see how it is.

>define properly your meme system
It is defined properly. To criticize it you had to say, "Yeah, well in the customary definition..." If you mean, "Define it as a formal work in pure mathematics," then maybe you should stick to reading papers in that area.

>>9917988
>>9917757
Because you said right here that the implants you hallucinated are gone: >>9912655 >>9914956

How did they magically disappear from your body, and why is it so hard for you to answer this question? The longer you try to evade the question, the more obvious it is that you are aware of your own mental illness but are unwilling to admit it. This is just pathetic and emabarassing at this point. You've been evading the question for two days now.

>>9917991
>you said right here that the implants you hallucinated are gone
No they don't. You are a liar.

>>9917991
>>9918008
I mean *No I didn't*

>>9917988
Sorry for not using Tex blocks, they are not displayed properly on my computer

Do you agree, yes or no, that 2*inf = inf ?
If so :
y+ = inf - y
y- = y + inf

y+ + y- = inf + y' - y' + inf = 2*inf = inf
y+ = inf - y-
= inf - (inf - y')
= y', as you assume inf - inf = 0

But you expressed y+ = inf - y'
Therefore you must assume that 2*inf =! inf

Since k*inf =! inf, inf - inf = 0, your "infinity" is just a real number.

>>9918008
>>9918009
>>9917997
And I quote:
>the one I could feel with my finger is gone now, and I no longer experience electrical shocks in that shallow part of my anus.
>I imagine it went back to the facility of the United States of America from whence it came.
Those are your own words, and they seem to indicate that you are now lying. Would you care to explain how the above quotes are not you admitting that the """implants""" have magically disappeared from your body?

>>9918021
>Do you agree, yes or no, that 2*inf = inf ?
That's the thing. He is very inconsistent with that point.

>>9918037
I've observed that
He needs it for some of his derivations but if he admits it, then infinity is exactly just a random number

Pretty certain that if you cared (and deciphered his confuse reasoning) you'd show that he choose infinity to behave exactly a multiple of 2*pi

>>9917737
I wouldn't be so smug, you ugly cunt. You've admitted to enough crimes in these threads and been posting your biographical details like an absolute dumbass, so that all I have to do is send one little tip to the FBI and then your sorry ass will get thrown so deep into a mental institution that you will never see the light of day again until the day you die. You'll spend the rest of your life in a small padded cell, drugged out of your mind with antipsychotics and bound in a straightjacket, screaming as loud as you can about your pseudoscience delusions until you finally get a brain anneurysm. But there will be nobody to hear you because nobody cares.

Now leave and never post on this website ever again unless you want me to make that your reality. This is your only warning.

>>9918071
>been posting your biographical details like an absolute dumbass
Indeed, pic related.

>>9918071
ow the edge

>Ambiguity in physics makes many useful calculations impossible. Here we reexamine physics’ foundation in mathematics and discover a new mode of calculation. The double slit experiment is correctly described by the new mode. We show that spacetime emerges from a set of hidden boundary terms. We propose solutions to problems including the limited spectrum of CMB fluctuations and the anomalous flux of ultra-high energy cosmic rays. A fascinating connection between biology and the new structure should have far reaching implications for the understanding and meaning of life
I was not ready for this power level

Are all his writings of the same calibre ?
It's like Wildberger, without actually having a background in the field you're talking about and without the charm of actually meaning something, if something really weak

>>9918037
>>9918021
You're not doing the order of operation in the way that is required for self-consistency. By doing the order of operations in the way that is not self-consistent, you are able to show a lack of consistency.

>>9918122
So your system only works if you do the operations in a certain way
So it's ad-hoc for your "proof" and is completely useless for everything else, as it's not robust to some elementary derivations

In other words, your system is absolutely useless ; mathematics is supposed to allow flexible reasoning

Either that or you suddenly decided that the addition is not associative anymore

>>9918143
> only works if you do the operations in a certain way
2+3x2 = ???

>>9918198
What are you trying to say ?
I didn't break distributivity in >>9918021

"Order of operation" in the way he implied is not distributivity of * by +, or if I did break it, then show where & how

>>9917747
>the limit of the sine, according to the definition of convergence, is that it is the sine of the limit.
Only works if it is continuous in that particular point, how do you prove continuity in [math]\infty[/math]?

>>9918218
>, then show where & how
do it like I did it in the paper. then everything works out.

>>9918243
>Only works if it is continuous in that particular point
Please explain why. I am not familiar with this detail.

>>9918252
>I am not familiar with this detail.
"I don't know the properties of the limits, but I'm going to bullshit about them anyway"

>>9918251
Brain damage
I didn't break any rule about distibutivity
Your "proof" does implies that infinity is just a real number

>>9918262
>Your "proof" does implies that infinity is just a real number
what about 0/0=1?

>>9919223
I told you to fuck off. Don't make me tip the local police about you too.

>>9908199
What the fuck

>>9919250
Also, there are no such limits at infinity, just as 1 + 2 + 3 + ... does not equal -1/12, it's just the Ramanujan summation that does. The Ramanujan summation is not a summation per se, it just assigns a value to divergent series that for some reason no one understands has actual physical implications.

Perhaps you did provide a novel and useful way of assigning values to limits that don't exist, but I seriously doubt it.

>>9919265
The limit doesn't exist in real analysis, but it does in hypercomplex analysis, and it should in extended complex analysis and extended real analysis, and certainly it does in hyperreal analysis.

>>9918122
Give us a list of order of operations for [math]\infty[/math] and [math]\hat{\infty}[/math] and we WILL prove your paper wrong.

>>9919772
>Give us a list of order of operations for [math]\infty[/math] and [math]\hat{\infty}[/math] and we WILL prove your paper wrong.
That's something I want to know, to see if this ends the inconsistent uses.

>>9919468
Ok, compute it in you next vixra bullshit.

>>9908199
Hey dawg please seek help, nobody is out to get you and this may seem like a post from the sort of people out there who would be like that, you seem bright and I think you should get some shrink care dawg.

>>9919800
A quick glance already shows that his "infinity" of """hypercomplex analysis""" behaves exactly like a real number (and not even an arbitrarily large one) : >>9918021

Either that, or - is not associative anymore, which breaks everything about group theory

>>9919265
>for some reason no one understands has actual physical implications.

it describes it's route to infinity, as in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sum1234Summary.svg

Sort of like where a tornado touches the ground.
Sort of like where the quantum infinites cancel out to give a real value.

>>9919985
>quantum infinity
loma

>>9916523
Ok, if [math]\infty=\infty+\frac{\pi}{2}[/math] then explain why your limits of sine and cosine are not both zero. Using your "result" for the sine you get
[math] \cos (\infty )=\cos (\infty +\frac{\pi}{2})=-\sin (\infty )=0[/math]

>>9920016
what is Feynman diagrams

>>9916523
Even in the realm of "non-standard analysis", with which I'm arguably not really familiar, the writing of infinity being treated like a number is absurd

Also, your proof doesn't hold if I let 2*inf = inf, as shown by :
y+ = inf - y'
y- = y' + inf

y+ + y- = inf + y' - y' + inf = 2*inf = inf
y+ = inf - y-
= inf - (inf - y')
= y', as you assume inf - inf = 0

But you expressed y+ = inf - y'

If you define two quantities which can't be added without losing consistency lmao @ ur life

>>9919772
I don't use hat in the paper, so I doubt it. However, any order of operations that replicates the arithmetic in the paper and my examples in this thread should be fine.

>>9920219
I'm using extended R as the domain of the sine and cosine. That means cos(inf+pi/2) is ill-defined because the function's input is not in its domain.

>>9920226
Extended real analysis is totally standard, and I am not using any concepts from hypercomplex analysis, so your reference to non-standard analysis is out of context.

>>9920226
>Also, your proof doesn't hold if I let 2*inf = inf
Don't do that there then! Pic related, if you factor out 2pi then e to the i anything is equal to one but we just don't do that because it messes things up. This is how math works, not sure if know. Seems like you don't.

>>9920320
It doesn't work like that, you have to give us some axioms your [math]\infty[/math] obeys because it clearly does not coincide with the usual definition of [math]\infty[/math] on the extended real number line. Also you say [math]\cos(\infty+\pi/2)[/math] is ill-defined because [math]\infty+\pi/2[/math] is not in its domain. However, you have done the same thing here yourself >>9916023 , essentially we can see [math] (x,y)\mapsto\frac{x}{y}[/math] as a function defined on [math]\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{0\}[/math]. In this way you have also plugged in values that are not in this functions domain.

>>9920320
>I'm using extended R as the domain of the sine and cosine. That means cos(inf+pi/2) is ill-defined because the function's input is not in its domain.
Ok, the same happens with cos(inf-pi/2) which should be in your domain. Explain that.

>Extended real analysis is totally standard
Your bullshit is NOT extended real analysis.

>Don't do that there then
"You only can do it when I say so.... And it's also totally not inconsistent because I say so".

>>9920438
>you have to give us some axioms
Who is "us?" For physicists, giving the equations is fine, and my mathematical program lies within mathematical physics.

> does not coincide with the usual definition of [math]\infty[/math] on the extended real number line.
I am defining it as something in the hypercomplex numbers, which more complicated than even the hyperreal line. This is the new invention that I am reporting: hypercomplex analysis. It is invalid to say, "Inventions aren't allowed." Also, argument that I should write out all the definitions that literally one million other people are more expert with than I is to say, "Don't write about your own contribution so much, that which you understand so well. Instead, write in a language in which you are not proficient so detractors can detract from you without fallacy."

>same thing here yourself >>9916023 (You)
Pic related, I used that as shortcut notation for a longer calculation which gets the same answer but does not rely on the problem notation. This contrasts the countercase in which one did have to take the sine of his number. My way has a workaround in the non-brief notation, but there is no workaround for his having to take the sine of that number for the convergence in the sub-sequence.

Since I didn't use the hat in the paper, I am trying not mention it here, but I think putting the hat on the infinity symbol defines the correct order of operations. Although I did not have to do so here, it might be required for me to invoke the hat at some point as new, more-complicated, yet still well-formed countercases arise. Therefore, just start writing the hat on the infinity symbol.

Schizos pls leave

>>9920468
>Explain that.

Where did your hallucinations go, Jon?

>>9920570
>For physicists, giving the equations is fine
Bullshit. This is only to justify yourself, but no physicist believe that.

>I am defining it as something in the hypercomplex numbers
"Inconsistent numbers" because they have no well defined properties. You have already proven that you can't enumerate their properties.

>It is invalid to say, "Inventions aren't allowed."
NO, inconsistent bullshit is what isn't allowed.

>>9920652
>>Explain that.
>Cosine isn't defined as a function of two tiers of infinitude.
So, you can only have a cosine of a finite number or a cosine of an infinite number.... Because you ass say so....
But cos(x-pi/2)=sin(x) is a well known property of the cosine, why does your definition of cosine don't follow it? Because you ass say so. Because if you follow consistent math your "proof" becomes bullshit.

>>9920666
Is it not suspicious that the person who gets my money if i am insane is also a mental health professional? I notice that the posts which are the most stupid in my thread use these jargon words which remind me of Helene and that time she filed a fraudulent affidavit against me to have the cops rush into my apartment, like six or eight of them, haul me away in Hannibal Lecter restraints, enslave me in an asylum for two weeks. When she did that, she was able to say the doctor I spent about an hour with diagnosed me as a paranoid schizophrenic. It is an obvious fraud, and anyone who gives it any credence is an obvious fraudster. When they say, "It's terrible how he wants to destroy them," but if you look at who they really are then you would agree with me.

>>9920652
Wait, you can't have [math]\cos(\infty-\pi/2)[/math], but in your paper you are looking at numbers of the form [math] \infty - y^+ [/math] so how exactly are these cases different?

>>9920768
You're a homeless person: you don't have any money. Where did the implants you imagined go? How were they able to disappear without a trace?

>>9920684
>why does your definition of cosine don't follow it?
pic
If I had called my paper, ``Derivation of the values of sine and cosine at infinity,'' then I would have had to concede that my result does not hold in finite analysis. However, the limits are well-formed statements in real, finite analysis.

>>9920820
Since we are not talking about hypercomplex analysis here, but rather finite real analysis and in some cases its continuation to extended R, I am not using the hypercomplex imaginary variables to argue. If I did that, then all I would hear is, "Notation can't be invented!!!"

>how exactly are these cases different?
real analysis does have an infinite number, usually
extended real analysis has an infinite number
complex analysis has an imaginary number
extended complex analysis has an infinite real number and an infinite imaginary number
hypercomplex analysis has real and imaginary infinite numbers, and also real ans imaginary numbers greater than infinity
hyperreal analysis is like hypercomplex analysis without the imaginary number

>>9920890
>real analysis does ***NOT*** have

>>9920858
>pic
That's stupid. "They don't work because they don't work, period". You through also a bullshit about Taylor series like it's a proof of something (well.... It's a proof of your stupidity).
First, you say that "there will be undefined powers of infinity". You would have the same problem when working with sin(infinity) and I don't see you saying that there is a problem with that.....
Secondly, you can take the Taylor series around -pi/2 instead of around 0. But it seems that your knowledge of Taylor series is too limited to do it...
And thirdly, the formula cos(x+y)=cos(x)cos(y)-sin(x)sin(y) don't work either, do it?
Why? Because all your definitions are pulled from your ass without thinking about consistency.

>>9920890
>hypercomplex analysis has real and imaginary infinite numbers, and also real ans imaginary numbers greater than infinity
Do you just make these up? How are [math]\widehat{1}[/math] and [math]\widehat{\infty}[/math] defined and how is your [math]\infty[/math] different from a real number?

>>9920908
>Do you just make these up?
Yes, he is pulling that form this ass with no regard for consistency.

>>9916023
[math]
\dfrac{3x+1}{2x+1} = \dfrac{3 + \frac{1}{x}}{2 + \frac{1}{x}} \to \frac{3}{2} ~~~,~ x \to \infty
[/math]

Who is TheLord?

>>9920936
Jonathan Tooker, the greatest contemporary genius of our time.

>>9920899
>I don't see you saying that there is a problem
The powers of infinity are defined in hypercomplex analysis. When my paper refers to "sine" and "cosine" it is implicit that these are functions of a real variable. I continued to infinity and then beyond infinity where I learned something new about the behavior at infinity. Then I concluded that the limit of the behavior approaching infinity, the behavior relevant to real analysis, should be equal to the value at infinity which I derived in the extended analysis.

>>9920947
That's not an answer to any of the points raised there.

>>9920925
that notation is very clean

>>9920936
A paranoid schizophrenic homeless man who was kicked out of physics grad school and now torments /sci/ with his nonsensical vixra papers, threats of violence toward anons' future children, numerology, claims of godhood and lineage from various famous dictators and spiritual figures, etc.

>>9920963
>kicked out of physics grad school
Source?

>>9920936
>>9920963
Oh and he claims that he's the greatest physicist ever and that everyone else is stealing his work.

>>9920966
>Source?
I would like to know. Was it the Israelites?

>>9920970
Jon tell us a bit about yourself man, how did it all come to this?

>>9920969
>Oh and he claims that he's the greatest physicist
I won't claim to be a greater physicist than any of those whose stuff I use. Most successful living physicist is what I call myself.

>>9920978
>how did it all come to this?

>>9920963
Don't forget that he's a self-described serial rapist.

>>9920982
At one point you were like the rest of us, how did you go from master student at GATech to homeless?

Where did your hallucinated implants go, Jon?

>>9920936
>Check mylife for the one jonathan w tooker in georgia
>criminal or civil court records
>lawsuits, liens, or bankruptcies found
THIS ISN'T ONE GIANT LARP BOYS HOLY SHIT

>>9920979
>I won't claim to be a greater physicist than any of those whose stuff I use. Most successful living physicist is what I call myself.
"I'm not saying that I'm the best. I only say that I'm the best alive, I don't know how people confuse it...."

>>9920947
Imagine being fat, ugly, homeless, AND schizophrenic.

>>9920991
I didn't work after I got expelled in Dec 2011, and Helene gave me a minimal subsistence with which to pay my bills and little else. After she and my dad had the cops raid my apartment, and had me held against my will in an insane asylum for two weeks, I decided to give up my protest and get a job. I worked until Jan 2017 and then I tried to emmigrate to Israel. Although I am a Jew with right of return, USA citizens do not need a visa to travel to Israel. In any case, the Israelites did not allow me into their country, and I ran out of money. After the manager of my apartment complex intimated to me that she was going to get the cops to throw me out, I became homeless upon my voluntary departure under duress. I got my tax return from that month of work in 2017 and I paid some rent which recently ran out. If no one gives me any money, it is likely that I will be homeless again soon. Despite living indoors for three months, I still feel homeless.

>>9921037
Nobody here feels bad for you because you're a violent jerk.

>>9921044
How do you feel about my result?

>>9921046
It's nonsense that's not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with mathematics. You are a total failure.

>>9921037
Why did you get expelled? And why are you not looking for a new job now? Or at least some disability aid money or something?

>>9921073
>Why did you get expelled?
Went to a protest, used my GT email on distributed literature. Two weeks later, sexual harassment claims against me from six months earlier and 18 months earlier get me expelled.

18 mo: Woman joins lab, shares office with me. Flirt, ask to see her apartment. She says, "Ok." Go to her apartment from office, walk through kitchen, down hall, into bedroom, into bedroom walk-in closet. Take girl by wrist for kiss. She screams, "Don't fuck with me!!!" Go to living room. Look out window at vicious skull graffiti where Delia's chicken sausage is now: "keep on cluckin'." I leave. Never bother her again, complain surfaces after protest.

6 mo: Woman joins lab for summer REU. Ask her on date. Ask her to come home with me. At home, try to kiss. Woman doesn't want to kiss, asks to go back to lab. Take her back to lab. Put hand on thigh in car. Pinch ass on way back to building from parking lot. Call two or three times but she is non-responisve and I don't call her or speak to her again. Complaint surfaces after protest, though this complaint had already existed and was blown off before I went to the protest. I know that because my adviser told me she complained and that I needed to be careful because that kind of thing could end my career. I say the work place needs to be corrected if that is something that can ruin a career. That is so stupid: to weigh the woman's petulant whining with the entire weight of the world's scientific establishment, and its contributors.

And why are you not looking for a new job now?
Not offered appropriate employment, returned to academic/scientific/economic protest.

>Or at least some disability aid money
I don't want to check the box which says I am disabled.

>or something?
you tell me

>>9921105
The virgin Tooker vs. the chad Davis

>>9921105
You left out the part where you raped them.

>>9921124
since I am treated as if I had raped them, I sarcastically refer at times to these events as rape.

>>9921127
I don't believe you. You compulsively lie for personal gain.

>>9921105
>vicious skull graffiti
that skull is on the wall below this pig.

>>9921145
This isn't proof of shit. There could be a skull on ANY given wall in atlanta. More than that, even if the skull exists, which I don't see, we have no way of verifying that it happened like that other than the word from your crazy ass. You could have raped the girl and then left, seeing the stupid fucking skull as you walked out.

>>9921168
ask the women about it.

>>9908199
>4 refernces in text
>they're all your own papers

Hmm...

>>9921240
YOU said they claimed you raped them. Based on your own words, I don't think that is necessary.

>>9921289
That was merely my bombastic language. The main statute that violated in the student code, there were the same seven or so violations in each instance, was that I was scary, and they felt scared even be at the same university as me. The entire matter was non-criminal. It was so petty that it had already been blown off before I went to the protest, but after it wasn't. And this second allegation from even one year earlier materialized. I denied any wrong doing, and they said I was scary, and the student justice administrator determined that there was a preponderance of evidence that I was so scary as to be multiple violations of the student code. Pic related, it's who steers the fate of the universe.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdyPuipTGCI

>>9921331
>preponderance of evidence
Note well, Brandi determined that he-said/she-said is a preponderance of evidence for the she-said party.

After my meeting with Brandi over the first rape, I got suspended for two semesters. Then a couple weeks later, I got email notification of second complaint. Since an outright denial of wrongdoing from me was a preponderance of evidence of my wrongdoing, I did not attend the second meeting with Brandi. Without input from me, Brandi determined that there was a preponderance of evidence of my wrongdoing regarding the other rape from the earlier year, and I got suspended for two more semesters. However, this was a de facto expulsion because I lost my student status and would have had to apply for readmission without my fellowship, loans, waiver, or assistantship.

>>9921037
>If no one gives me any money,
there's actually a really sweet deal where you can get someone to give you money in exchange for your time.
instead of being homeless, you can spend some of your time to get money and then spend the rest of your time at home which you can afford because of the money.
go to the local cvs or walmart and ask about it

>>9921381
>there's actually a really sweet deal
That deal is so bitter I won't touch my tongue to it much less sell myself to it.

>>9921331
Join the military and do special forces or be a helicopter pilot or something. Rapey weirdos like you fit right in, trust me.

>>9921399
>living on the street instead of in a house
>not knowing where your next meal is coming from
>having your belongings stolen by other desperate homeless
>stinking, wearing dirty clothes, absolutely repulsive to everyone around you, unable to find collaboration
>not pondering lemmas while doing mindless work like laying bricks or loading crates
>using computers in the public library, unable to use any software to help you with analysis
>not wanting to write your paper in the evenings with shelter, heat, air conditioning, light, food, water, and quiet
you're only pretending like you really want it anon
if you really wanted it you'd do what you had to do to set yourself up for success

>infinity
not even once
automatic brainlet

>>9921482
>if you really wanted it
What I really want is to call attention to the fact that capitalism says my work is worthless, and then get redress for that wrong.

>>9921105
i'm glad you were expelled

>>9921554
Man you really are just a few steps away from being a crazy bum. That’s so cool.

Someone should make a new thread. This one is almost at bump limit.

>>9921554
>to call attention to the fact that capitalism says my work is worthless
"Despite what you say, my article is perfect. You and the whole system are wrong"

>>9921554
It's time to make a new thread my dude

>>9920966
he's told us as much himself

>>9920970
no it was you sexually harassing coworkers

>>9922201
>>9921990
Fuck off, this one's not even off the front board yet and /sci/ is slow as molasses. wait until it dies entirely.

>>9922545
It wasn't that. If my actions were like a crime then it was like sexual assault (rape) when I affectionately initiated body contact with them after we had gone to my place or her place. There was nothing related even remotely to sexual harassment.

>>9922591
That's sexual harassment. Me saying "I affectionately ran the schizophrenic over with my car" doesn't stop it from being vehicular homicide. kys

>>9922598
No it isn't. Sexual harassment happens in the work place. These events weren't even on campus, much less in the workplace. If my remarks in the workplace were unwanted, then they wouldn't have voluntarily gone home with me in one case, or taken me into her bedroom in the other.

>>9922606
I see it says "other social situation." I think in private, just the two of you alone, does not conform to that definition, but I won't argue it. Certainly nothing I did was harassing.

new thread:
>>9922600

>>9922591
you kissed multiple people against their will, that's sexual harassment

You know, seeing that you, an absolutely crazy, dumbfuck paranoid schizophrenic, with rapey tendency, who's fucking up this already borderline retarded board with its mindless cranky bullshit is soon going to be homeless makes me think that sometimes, there is a justice in this world.

>>9922628
You are wrong. After retreating to the private residence it is ok to initiate body contact. If they weren't in it to get fucked or to fuck me over, then why was the one woman in my apartment and I in the other woman's bedroom? That's where you go to initiate sexual contact. Why did she agree to home with me after our date? Why did she invite me into her bedroom?

If you think it's not allowed to try to kiss a woman after you go home together, I will be glad to give you the torturers to hurt you until you make a contrary statement.

>>9922647
>After retreating to the private residence it is ok to initiate body contact.
not without consent it's not. if you did it without consent, it's actually worse than harassment, it's assault

>>9922647
And in fact, i kissed neither of them. The one at my place pulled away when I leaned in and then asked to back to school, where I took her directly. The other one I didn't even try to kiss, I only took her by the hand before she started screaming.

>>9922648
Your claim that affirmative verbal consent is required is false. That is just your gay bullshit, not the cultural norm, the law of the land, or the code of the university. That's why the university ignored the complaints the first time around: it was so petty it was obvious I had not gone too far.

>>9922653
it literally is the cultural norm and the law of the land though.

>>9922655
The cultural norm is that if you take someone home with you after flirting with them or taking them on a date you're going there to fuck. The law says that what I did is not a crime, so what law are you referring to?

>>9922660
the law against sexual assault, and no, that's not the cultural norm at all except in your head.

>>9922662
Which law is that? Hot tip: it's the one you're making up in your head that doesn't exist.

>>9922698
people go to jail for sexual assault, anon

>>9922699
It is not sexual assault to initiate body contact in our respective private residence. You're caveat about "unwanted" is disgustingly stupid; it means that every man who ever got turned down in the history of the universe was guilty of sexual harassment of sexual assault.

And not only that, but one of these two women recanted their accusations after I was expelled, but my expulsion remained in place.

>>9922713
if it's unwanted contact it absolutely is sexual assault. again, people go to jail for this every day

>>9922716
>if it's unwanted contact it absolutely is sexual assault.
No it isn't. There is a whole mess of legal jargon defining sexual assault and "unwanted" does not constitute the entirety of it.

>>9922730
it's definitely a big part of it though. and what you did is definitely assault.

>>9922737
>what you did is definitely assault.
You are lair, and neither woman accused me of assault or harassment. They said that I what I did made them feel too scared to be on the same campus as me.

>>9922754
you don't have to be accused of something for it to fit the bill.

>>9922755
It does have to meet the technical definition of criminality to be criminal. Not only that, my actions didn't even meet the watered-down criteria of assault and harassment in the non-criminal student code of the university.

I got expelled because they said they felt scared afterward. Not that I harassed or assaulted them at the time. It's pure bullshit, and the real reason i got kicked out of college on this false predicate is because I went to that protest.

And on top of that, during the expulsion hearing, when the woman said I was scary and I said I wasn't, and there was no other evidence in consideration, the university found that there was a preponderance of evidence for my having violated the student code with extreme scariness.

>>9922774
except they do

>>9922800
>during the expulsion hearing, when the woman said I was scary and I said I wasn't
After seeing this thread, I believe her.

>>9922606
No, it happens among people affiliated in the workplace. Man or woman, it is expected that if you are sexually assaulted by a coworker, hazed, etc. then you can call HR. Dude, you groped them really early on and egged them to go further on the FIRST fucking date. I'm not a feminist and even I'm getting creeped out just reading about it

>>9922606
>f my remarks in the workplace were unwanted, then they wouldn't have voluntarily gone home with me in one case, or taken me into her bedroom in the other.

You didn't act creepy until they went home with them, duh. The problem is that you blew it in spectacular fashion twice

When I take my vengeance on you, then you will know my name is The Lord.