/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9927838
Fucking stop it. Your retarded result was disproved ten ways from Sunday, but you ignore them all. You'll ask me to "show where", but if I were to do that, you'd make excuses. This is not a good result. We are telling you this because you need help. Stop wasting time on 4chan.

>>9927846
Cringe

>>9927838
You have untreated syphillis. Also stop evading your ban.

>>9927838
[math]\frac{\partial \left(\text{sgn}\left(\left\left| v w^{r-1}\right\right| +(x+y+z)^r+e\right)+\iota s+e^{i \pi }\right)}{\partial x}=2 r (x+y+z)^{r-1}
\delta \left((x+y+z)^r+\left\left| v w^{r-1}\right\right| +e\right)[/math]

>>9927838
how have you not been banned yet?

>>9927945
How have you not gotten bored of posting that question in any thread you feel like you don't understand? Do you think the fucking mods of 4chan are professors or something?

Or are you that cucked your only 'outlet' is wondering why some 'higher power' doesn't resolve your own inability to understand?

>>9927838
>Stop wasting time on 4chan.
undo those wrongs you did me so I can get something better to do, according to my definition of better for myself, not according what you find to be better in your opinion.

>>9927974
I would ask only that you redirect your 'words' to try and educate people, rather than simply place your mathematics down as if it is a node for a hive-mind to swarm around.

Wouldn't kill "The Lord" to actually explain his new language, would it?

>>9927945
Even now, at this late time when I am still here, who do you think will be banned in the end? Do you think me? Or will I ban my enemies first?

>>9927980
Yeah, you really need to ratchet up the DIVINE FURY thing.

>now there's two schizos

>>9928023
who's Simon? I've been following the Tooker saga with relative interest, but I've never seen this other dude until now

>>9928023
No kidding. Please enlighten us anon

>>9927981
So what's your story?

>>9928049
Your inspection.

>>9927838
Jon I will ask one last time: what are your definitions of [math]\infty[/math], [math]\widehat{\infty}[/math] and [math]\widehat{1}[/math]?

>>9928023

>>9927846
please post some disproofs. i'd like to read them out of morbid curiosity

>>9928254
They were all in the previous threads.

First we very simply constructed a subsequence [math]y_n = \sin(x_n)[/math] such that [math]y_n = \pm 1[/math]. It is easy to see that this does not converge to 0. Jon did not like this, and told us we had to do it his way, which is essentially just plugging in [math]\infty[/math], and doing some algebraic manipulations to derive a limit from that.

So we did some limits his way and we came to the conclusion that using his computations, we obtained

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

which is obviously wrong. However Jon now said that we were "not allowed" to do these manipulations, even though he did similar things himself. He said that we had to work with [math]\widehat{\infty}[/math], which he still hasn't defined properly.

Yesterday another anon cleverly disproved Jon's result by using the cosine sum formula, but again Jon made up reasons why this result was not correct by spouting some adhoc nonsense on Taylor series. Now I'm trying to figure out what he means with [math]\widehat{\infty}[/math] so we can finally put an end to this.

For the previous threads just search the archives, he names them the same every time.

>>9928023
>two
You have no idea

>>9928230
Wide hat is the same as hat.
Hatted one is the identity.
Hatted infinity defines the self-consistent order of operations for the infinity symbol. This is the order given in the paper even when the hat symbol doesn't appear. Putting the hat on infinity is a reminder to do the self-consistent order of operations, as in the paper.

>>9928263
thank u, kind anon

>>9928263
>It is easy to see that this does not converge to 0
You only considered the first n terms. It is the final n terms that matter for convergence. I showed to final n terms all had the correct convergence to support my derivation.

>we obtained
You obtained this via the non-self-consistent order of operations.

>>9928275
>You only considered the first n terms.
do you know what a subsequence is?

>>9928272
Wide hat looks nicer, also what is "the paper"? The one mentioned in the OP or the one on the Riemann Zeta function?

>>9928275
>You obtained this via the non-self-consistent order of operations.
Please explain the proper order of operations that makes the stated limit you quoted converge correctly.

>>9928280
>"the paper"?
OP paper. Both papers are relevant to the hypercomplex analysis but the Riemann one is a little more abstract, and requires deeper thinking. Also, the first chapter of my book is good for hypercomplex definitions.
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

>>9928279
>do you know what a subsequence is?
If you define something, I think I will be able to determine if it conforms to the definition of a sub-sequence.

>>9928281
It's in the paper. Do it in the way needed to replicate my equations. If you post your work where you can't figure it out, I'll have a look and tell you where you're going wrong. You should be able to get it though.

>>9928285
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
>284 pages, 96 figures

Holy mother of god

sounds like someone needs to up the Olanzapine, Seroquel, Haloperidol, and Oxcarbazepine dosages.
Although I wonder what the effect of taking all of those at once is? In theory Mr. Tooker here should see substantial cognitive improvement with that particular cocktail.

>>9928291
I also recommend standalone chapter III.2

>>9928285
Every time.

>>9928290
How does it follow that [math]\Delta y^{+} \to \infty[/math]? We have [math] \Delta y' \to 0[/math], so I'd say

[eqn] \Delta y^{+} = \left[ \infty - (y' + h)\right] - \left[ \infty - y' \right] = \infty - \infty -y' - h + y' = -h \to 0 [/eqn]

>>9928382
At least, this is what would happen if we would take [math] y^{+} = M - y' [/math] for any other [math]M\in \mathbb{R}[/math].

>>9928230
>Jon I will ask one last time: what are your definitions of [math]\infty[/math], [math]\hat{\infty}[/math] and [math]\hat{1}[/math]?
>>9928272
>Hatted infinity defines the self-consistent order of operations for the infinity symbol.
I have proven you the other day that, if you want your limits to be true, hat infinity should be proportional to hat 1.

>>9928275
>You only considered the first n terms. It is the final n terms that matter for convergence. I showed to final n terms all had the correct convergence to support my derivation.
Because you decided to arbitrarily redefine the series in a way that fits your limit.

>You obtained this via the non-self-consistent order of operations.
That's what happens when you don't give how your operators work.

>>9928466
>hat infinity should be proportional to hat 1.
Let me do it again. You said the following things:
1. [math] \infty \hat{1}=\hat{\infty} [/math]
2. [math] \cos (x \hat{\infty})=\cos (x) \hat{\infty} [/math]
3.[math] \cos (x \hat{1})=\cos (x)[/math]
4.[math] \cos (\infty)=1
On the one hand, [math] \cos (\hat{\infty})=\cos(\infty) \cdot \hat{1}=1\cdot \hat{1}=\hat{1} [/math]
On the other hand [math] \cos (\hat{\infty})=\cos (1\cdot \hat{\infty})=\cos (1) \cdot \hat{\infty}[/math]
Thus [math] \hat{1}=\cos (1) \cdot \hat{\infty}[/math] Q.E.D.

So when will The Lord respond?

>>9928275
That's not how series work though. If the largest terms dont converge there is no possible way for converging smaller terms to make the whole series converge.

>>9928339
>unassailable
>didn't round correctly

Psyop to discredit vixra even further or dedicated troll? You decide.

>>9928382
>How does it follow that [math]\Delta y^{+} \to \infty[/math]? We have [math] \Delta y' \to 0[/math], so I'd say
Plug in Delta y' for y'. Plug in Delta y+ for y+. Don't use h without saying what h is.

>>9928466
>I have proven you the other day that, if you want your limits to be true, hat infinity should be proportional to hat 1.

>>9928470
Pic related, I see the identity you have derived. It looks ok to me, what is the contradiction? It certainly doesn't imply one is equal to infinity.

>>9928666
>It certainly doesn't imply one is equal to infinity.
Nevermind, I see it. I will think about it.

>>9928466
>>9928470
>>9928666
>>9928672
Although I have used eq (2) in my own demonstration, now I am compelled by your demonstration to say this isn't allowed.

Previously, I used the step in eq (2) to show why the Taylor series of cos(inf)=1 become invalid with undefined powers of infinity. Now, if I say you cannot use that step, then I also can not use it. Therefore, express the constraint on cosine that it is only a function of a single tier of infinitude as: you can't put infinity hat inside the cosine: only the identity. Said another way, numbers shall only be in the domain of the cosine when they are multiplied by one hat, numbers multiplied by infinity hat aren't allowed in the cosine.

This will lead to to terms like infinity to the n in the Taylor series, but we will just say those are infinity. It was only (hat infinity)^n which was the problem quantity.

Good criticism, thank you.

>>9928719
Here when I say "eq(2)" I am referring to:
>>9928666

Sry, for ambiguity

>>9928619
I said it was approximately equal to 137, not that it rounded to 137. Why do you raise these straw men?

>>9928275
>final n terms

but we constructed it the way that all terms are the same!

>>9928651
Well you are using delta without saying what it is. If it would be any other real number the [math]\Delta y^{+}[/math] would go to zero whenever [math]\Delta y’[/math] goes to zero. Have you thought about this?

>>9928738
I showed that your notation fails to enforce the constraint that you rely upon.

>>9928651
Also you can’t “just plug in” [math]\Delta[/math]. You have to take it on both sides. For any constant M we have [math]\Delta M = 0 [/math], which completely destroys your paper.

>>9928752
It is clear in the paper what Delta is. I had not thought about that thing specifically, but using numbers bigger than infinity should balance everything out.

When you draw a random number from all numbers greater than or less than infinity, what is the chance of getting one smaller than infinity?

>>9928758
I agree that we have to do it on both sides, I have shown what happens when you do it the same on the other side. If you present your thing that destroys my paper as well-formed mathematical statement together with a few sentences explaining your point, I will have a look.

>>9928764
But it’s not clear in the paper at all, and in general it does not work (as I demonstrated above).

>using numbers bigger than infinity should balance everything out

How so?

>>9928766
Well what do you think [math]\Delta[/math] means? How are you using it? What happens when we take [math] \Delta (y’ + M) [/math]?

>>9928768
It is clear what the meaning of Delta is in the paper.

>How so?
In a general, qualitative way.

>>9928772
>What happens when we take [math] \Delta (y’ + M) [/math]?
If you write down what you think happens, I will have a look.

>>9928774
It is not clear at all. If we take Delta in the same way as in any derivative definition your inifnity will vanish.

>>9928779
How the fuck does an 'infinity' vanish FFS? The idea is retarded.

>>9928023
>now
>two

>>9928776
Usually we take for Delta something like

[eqn] \Delta y’ = y’ + h - y’ [/eqn]

Where h is small. If we plug in [math] \infty - y’[/math] in the above, the infinities will cancel (as you have also done in your paper), leaving us with something that goes to 0

>>9928782
I’m using his rules here for the moment. Even you do that it, the paper doesn’t make any sense.

>>9928788
The point is more that it is the 'inspection' that unifies. The paper only doesn't make sense because the creator of it doesn't seem to want to give it any narrative, just an existence.

However those that do that are lazy fucks.

>>9928779
>It is not clear at all
I disagree

>>9928786
> infinities will cancel
which is the other infinity?

>>9928802
[eqn] \Delta (\infty - y’) = \infty - y’ + h - \infty - y’ = h [/eqn]

>>9928808
Forgot some brackets but you get the idea

>>9928808
>>9928786
>Usually we take for Delta something like
take it like it is in the paper

>>9928812
my adblocker disables latex

>>9928823
How do you take it in the paper? Write it down please!

Where were the 900 people arguing with the doctor who said I had an imaginary disease? Her opinion was fine at face value apparently.

>>9928829
Everything in the paper is written down. That's what "in the paper" means. You have to use your brain, it is written for subject matter experts.

>>9928834
The thing is that is WRONG in the paper. Watch this

Delta y^+ = Delta (infty - y’) = (infty - y’ + h) - (infty - y’) = y’ + h - y’ = Delta y’

And this goes to zero. You’re wrong.

>>9928834
Let me rephrase it as a question:

What do you think is the distance between (infty - y’ + epsilon) and (infty - y’)?

>>9928839
You're defining Delta not in the way it is defined in the paper. You are using the formal variational notation, and I am not. I am using notation that reflects the convention in the paper. However, if one does use that notation then the function whose limit is considered should be rewritten instead of the Delta. I think it works out like that in the variational notation that uses h in the definition of Delta. Since y appears twice in the variational Delta y which uses h, the infinities cancel, but if you do the conversion in the function, there is only one y and the infinities won't cancel.

>>9928845
No need to rephrase. If you use that Delta, which is the formal one, then you are right. The workaround is to rewrite the y in the function instead of the y in the limit.

>>9928851
Yes I use the formal one because that’s the one in the definition of a complex derivative. How do you know your version of Delta coincides with the definition of a complex derivative?

>>9927838
Where did your implants go?

>>9928856
>How do you know your version coincides
I did it in the function first, and then when I was writing the paper I thought it looked tidier to do the conversion in the limit. That's how I know the answer I got using my Delta was the formal answer.

>>9928862
Doesn’t matter which you do first because the infinity will vanish and therefore also the e^i \infty term.

>>9928861
Where did my right not to have you guys slice me with knives and stab me with picks go? You never had the right, you were wrong the whole time.

>>9928865
It doesn't matter which I did first, but since I did both of them alone separately, rewriting the limit and rewriting the function, and they both gave the same answer, both answers are correct.

>>9928287
If X_n is a sequence indexed by n, a subsequence of X is a sequence indexed by m, where m takes some, but not necessarily all, values of n. For example, every other element of a sequence is a subsequence, since m takes values m = 2n.

>>9928873
that sounds right to me

>>9928864
If that had actually happened and not been a schizophrenic hallucination you would have had some evidence of surgery, like scarring and incision marks, no? Not to mention that it was done while you were awake and walking around.

>>9928774
>It is clear what the meaning of Delta is in the paper.
No, it isn't.
>>9928774
>In a general, qualitative way.
But what about in an exact, mathematical way?

>>9927838
Unrelated to your math, how's your life going? Something interesting?

>>9928864
Bitch this is 4Chan. It never existed.

>>9928892
>No, it isn't.
I see what you are saying now. The reader can think, "It is how it says it is," or he can think, "This is wrong." I encourage the former.

Do you see what I'm saying about how doing the conversion in the function instead of limit conforms to the usual definition and also gives the same answer?

I think it is pedantry to focus so much on the global consistency of the irrelevant part of the notation when the answer at the end of the notation, that which we are after, is the same as doing it in the formal math notation which I skip in the mathematical physics paper. This issue of the variational definition of Delta vs the one Im have defined is the same issue about how I didn't divide through by 1/x to get the limit, even though the tidy steps I put in the paper get the same answer. Certainly, I will not claim that pedants have no place in academia, quite the opposite, but the definition of pedantry as excessive preoccupation with minutiae has a negative connotation in "excessive." The criticism is, "Write it more better." I could write a better paper but that distracts from the fact that the paper I did write clearly shows what the limits at infinity of sine and cosine are, even while the pedants have to rewrite longer formulas which will produce the same corroborating answers.

>>9928922
> how's your life going
Being a food insecure and housing insecure person is unduly stressful, and I hate it that they do this to me. Buy my book.

>>9928925
>It never existed.
Your lie doesn't make it true.

>>9928023
pic related

>>9928928
>I think it is pedantry to focus so much on the global consistency of the irrelevant part of the notation when the answer at the end of the notation
You said the same about hat 1 and hat infinity and look how that ended for you.....

>>9928719
Well..... Now that [math]\cos (\hat{\infty})[/math] is undefined, does it means that [math]\cos (\infty)[/math] is also undefined?

>>9929149
Your mental condition is deteriorating too rapidly for this to be schizophrenia. You have syphillis.

what's up with his weird-ass filename naming scheme?

>>9928928
Jon, I've really tried thinking in your way and thinking "okay, this may not be true, but let's assume that we can do this" but I can not let you get away with this [math]\Delta y^{+}[/math] issue because I believe it is just plain wrong. You are taking on one hand the derivative of [math]e^z[/math] (derivative is defined using the "variational delta"), but on the other side of the equality you have the same thing but then with the non-variational delta. You can not just say that these are equal.

Your explanation of your version of [math]\Delta[/math] also doesn't make sense at all, and your trick between equation (15) and (16) don't work if [math]\infty[/math] would be any real number. It is time to either

1. admit you are wrong.
2. give us a definition of what you mean with [math]\Delta y^{+}[/math]. You can't just define this in your own way, then set the limit equal to the derivative using the conventional [math]\Delta[/math] on the other side.
3. write out your other proof.

>>9929227
>I believe it is just plain wrong
With regards to the definition that I didn't have in mind when I wrote the paper, you are correct, it is wrong. The way I wrote it is not consistent with the definition of the variation Delta. There's nothing to not let me go about. Now do you concede that the way I have used it gave the same answer as if I had done it the other way, which I did compute but did not include in the paper?

>You can not just say that these are equal.
I don't though, and now you are raising a straw man, shame on you. I have concede that the notation in the intermediate steps is not globally robust, and I am waiting on you to concede the validity of my proposed workaround: replace it in the function instead of the limit. I also want you to concede that the paper on relies on value of the limit, not the definition of Delta, because the value I got is the same as if I hadn't changed the limit.

>>9929227
>3. write out your other proof.
You should do it to try to prove it doesn't work. I already did so I am confident about how it works.

>>9929311
>reveals himself to be a troll
/thread

>>9929309
>I don't though, and now you are raising a straw man, shame on you
This is not a strawman at all. See pic related. LHS is the derivative, which is defined with the normal Delta. RHS you are using your definition of Delta, and you say that these are equal. There is absolutely no guarantee that these are indeed equal since you are not using the conventional definition.

>>9928774
>It is clear what the meaning of Delta is in the paper.
no

>In a general, qualitative way.
meaningless

>>9930104
I already told you what the guarantee was. It is guaranteed.

>>9928766
if you want a simple mathematical explanation that destroys your "paper" you could see any of the countless undergraduate-level proofs that sine and cosine do not have limits at infinity, but your legitimate schizophrenia will prevent you from doing that.

>>9928928
i want to burn that image it is so fucking wrong jesus christ how can anyone ever purport to understand mathematics and at the same time unironically upload such an image

>>9928932
>Buy my book.
i would love it if the mods would ban this faggot for unambiguous shilling

>>9930222
if things are true just by your claiming that they are then you can go ahead and collect your fields medal for the Riemann Hypothesis immediately. the conclusion to the Hypothesis is obviously whatever you say it is since you are apparently a truth function.

>>9930222
>I already told you what the guarantee was. It is guaranteed.
You also guaranteed the consistency of hat 1 and hat infinity, and look how that ended....
By the way, now that [math]\cos (\hat{\infty})[/math] is undefined, does it means that [math]\cos (\infty)[/math] is also undefined?

You will never be recognized. you won't even be laughed on. You will just be forgaten.

>>9930548
Why did you write your own Epitath?

>>9930333
>does it means that [math]\cos (\infty)[/math] is also undefined?
no

>>9930995
>>does it means that cos(∞) is also undefined?
>no
Using your logic again
[math]\cos (\hat{\infty})=\cos (\infty \hat{1})=\cos (\infty )\hat{1}[/math]
Thus if the first is undefined, the last is undefined.

>>9930995
Ever going to feel like actually explaining what benefit anyone else would use your mathematics for, practically, or are you going to pull a Mochizuki?

>>9930995
The only difference between someone wanting to commit you or commit to you, is confidence.

>>9927838
How is this not filtered yet? You post the same OP every time.

>>9931046
The first is undefined so it doesn't make sense to put it in an equality

>>9931133
>The first is undefined so it doesn't make sense to put it in an equality
Don't care about that. If [math]\hat{\infty}=\infty \hat{1}[/math] then [math] \cos (\hat{\infty})=\cos (\infty \hat{1}) [/math] makes sense. And this is independent of [math] \cos (\hat{\infty}) [/math] making sense or not.
Thus, if [math]\cos (\hat{\infty})[/math] is not defined, then [math]\cos (\infty )[/math] is not defined. This is just your lack of consistency biting your ass.

>>9931195
>if [math]\cos (\hat{\infty})[/math] is not defined, then [math]\cos (\infty )[/math] is not defined.
The latter is defined though. I defined it in the paper. You are stupid and your point is weak.

>>9931277
kys

>>9930222
But you have to actually prove that, not just state it. It's possible to derive incorrect results by assuming a solution exists, which is essentially what you're doing by introducing a new definition and assuming there's some consistent way to make this new definition match the existing one.

>>9931277
>The latter is defined though. I defined it in the paper. You are stupid and your point is weak.
No, my point is that you have to make a choice: either hat infinity is a dumb concept and [math] \hat{\infty}\neq \infty \hat{1} [/math] or [math]\cos (\infty \hat{1}) [/math] is not well defined. Or a third option, explaining why if [math] \hat{\infty}=\infty \hat{1} [/math] then [math]\cos (\hat{\infty})=\cos (\infty \hat{1}[/math] is not defined.
Which of those is? You have to choose one of them and justify it.

>>9931133
But it is clear that the last expression is equal to the first, so if the last is undefined, so is the first.
Do you see how that works?

>>9931277
People are telling you that your paper makes no sense. You might SAY you've defined such and such in the paper, but he's proving -- by your own logic -- that your definition doesn't work.
I could write a paper defining pi as 3, but that doesn't mean that's a logically consistent definition.

>>9931372
>But you have to actually prove that, not just state it.
If you disagree that the answer is correct, and you attempt to prove that it is incorrect, I will have a look at what you wrote.

> is not well defined
Since it doesn't appear in the paper, and I have only suggested it as something to help you remember not to do the operations in the wrong order on purpose, I am ok with that.

>>9931380
>it is clear
It seemed that way at first glance but after being confronted with a certain countercase I no longer agree that it is clear.

>>9931397
>but he's proving -- by your own logic -- that your definition doesn't work.
That's wrong. He is using a definition that doesn't work to try to disprove the paper. Also, have you looked at the paper? You seem to think it has hat in it, but does not comrade.

>>9931433
>If you disagree that the answer is correct, and you attempt to prove that it is incorrect, I will have a look at what you wrote.
That's not how mathematics works. There needn't even be a disproof, because what you say might not be well defined at all. The point is that you're assuming there's a solution to the problem, some way of defining and interpreting what you've written that is logically consistent, and you can't make that assumption.

>>9930222
Give us a legit proof without using your sketchy Delta then.

>>9931494
>The point is that you're assuming there's a solution
I'm not assuming. I did it that way already and then I condensed it to what appears in the paper, as I've told you several times now. The only assuming here is when you assume the Delta isn't how I wrote it by invoking some extraneous, though well-known definition which is other than the one I have relied on in the paper.

>>9931523
If you're not going to acknowledge the legit proof I already gave you, I doubt you'd come around for a second legit proof.

>>9931586
i think you should put out a follow-up or accessory paper where you lay out the proof then. as long as you only have the condensed version on vixra, you're never going to stop getting people bugging you about it. it'll be less hassle for everyone

>>9931593
Less hassle isn't really what I'm after.

>>9931600
at the very least it would convince more people you're right

>>9931600
Not that anon, but I must agree. You will probably get less idiots if you show the full work. That is what 90% of these conversations are about. It is a waste of time, and you can probably do better things instead of argue with people over a condensed version. Also, you mention getting denied on arXiv... Have you tried looking for a publisher?

>>9931633
>Have you tried looking for a publisher
Yes, I use viXra now. If that's not what you mean by "publisher" then no, and I'm not going to. If I die while people are still ignoring it because they don't like the website they have download the paper from then that will be the story of my life.

>>9931627
It's not the convincing that is the bottleneck, its lack of integrity of chairmen of the ordinary scientific proceedings.

>>9931820
no, it's the convincing. if you can't even convince randos on fucking 4chan, you'll never convince the editors at journals. do you actually want your work to be recognized or do you just get a kick out of rejection?

>>9931820
Guess what? That's gonna be the story of your life.

>>9932336

Does the derivative still work for this definition?

>>9932355
The definition of the derivative will put Delta y -->0 in the bottom via
Delta y+ = y^+ + (h^+-y^+)=0 , h^+ -->0

Is that what you mean?

>>9931433
>It seemed that way at first glance but after being confronted with a certain countercase I no longer agree that it is clear.
"It is clear only when I say it is clear". It is totally obvious that the formula is clear and right, what is not right is you retarded hat infinity, which has been proven time and time again to be inconsistent. And, despite that, you are reluctant to give clear axioms for it (proving that you are pulling it out of your ass).

>>9931433
>He is using a definition that doesn't work to try to disprove the paper.
Some days ago it was a definition that worked according to you, today it doesn't work. But not because you have changed your mind, it's because it has been proven that your original definition was full of shit. Now you don't want to admit that also [math]\hat{\infty}=\infty \hat{1}[/math] is also full of shit because it's the last straw of your proof, and everything fall apart after it.

>>9931820
>It's not the convincing that is the bottleneck, its lack of integrity of chairmen of the ordinary scientific proceedings.
You still say that after been proven that your definition of cos(hat infinity) was totally wrong...

>>9932470
>it was a definition that worked according to you, today it doesn't work
that's right. I was convinced by somoene's countercase that the notation in the post, not in the paper, was not valid. Now I think cos(x) must be such that
x = 0 hat inf + x hat 1

where x is in extended R.

>>9932521
>x = 0 hat inf + x hat 1
>where x is in extended R.
Then now I can use [math]\cos (x-y)=\cos (x) \cos (y) +\sin (x) \sin (y) [/math] to prove that [\math]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \cos (x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \sin(x)[/math] just by choosing y=pi/2, which disagrees with your limit.

>>9932548
>[\math]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \cos (x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \sin(x)[/math]
[math]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \cos (x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \sin(x)[/math]

>>9932548
>>9932552

>>9933352
That is bullshit and I can prove it with your logic: You use the hat to distinguish between infinity and infinity-pi/2, but (as you said) cos(hat infinity) doesn't make any sense, so you can't use hat infinity in the argument of the cosine. Then, as the cosine should be with the usual infinity instead of your stupid hat infinity, it should not distinguish between infinity and infinity-pi/2 as it is usual infinity and not hat infinity. Therefore your proof is invalid.
Also, you still have not addressed >>9931375.

>>9932367
No I don't understand how you can say

[eqn] f'(z) = \lim_{(h_1,h_2) \to (0,0)} \frac{ f(z + h_1 + i h_2) - f(z)}{h_1 + ih_2} = \lim_{(h_1,h_2) \to (0,\infty)} \frac{ f(z + h_1 + i h_2) - f(z)}{h_1 + ih_2} [/eqn]

Because this is EXACTLY what you are doing in equation 22 and they are clearly not equal. Therefore the entire premise of your proof is WRONG.

>>9931375
>[math]\cos (\infty \hat{1}) [/math] is not well defined
Not well defined in R you mean. Extended R was invented to define this type of thing particularly.

>>9933546
>can't use hat infinity in the argument of the cosine.
I don't. You can use Delta theta' to put the argument of cosine in the form
x = 0 hat inf + x hat 1

In this form, it is ok to have hat inf inside the cosine because
0 hat inf + x hat 1 = x hat 1

>>9933559
When you write "prime" instead of d/dz you miss that there are three z's
z' = x + i y'
z+ = x + i y+
z- = x + i y-

Then there is some chain rule stuff when you do operations like
d/dz' f(z+) = ???

>>9933569
I'm doing exactly what you are doing in equation 22 Jon.

>>9933564
>Not well defined in R you mean. Extended R was invented to define this type of thing particularly.
You are dense.... If you say the following:
1. [math] \infty \hat{1} =\hat{\infty}[/math]
2. [math] \cos (\hat{\infty}) [/math] is not well defined.
Then we can state that
3. [math] \cos( \infty \hat{1}) =\cos (\hat{\infty})[/math] by statement 1
And thus
4. [math] \cos( \infty \hat{1}) [/math] is not well defined by combining statements 3 and 2.

>>9933572
>I'm doing exactly what you are doing in equation 22 Jon.
He is too dense to understand that.

>>9933559
>I don't understand how you can say
If you switch y+ in the function to y' instead of switching y' in the limit to y+ then, I hope, you will understand that these things are equal.

>>9933582
Statement 2 means that statement 3 is not allowed. Statement 4 is defined by the definition of the identity. Statement 1 means that you can move the hat but statement two means you can't move the hat inside the cosine.

>>9933572
>doing exactly what you are doing in equation 22
see: >>9933674

>>9933674
Shouldn't [math]\Delta z^+ \to \infty[/math], because above we also have [math]\Delta y^+ = \infty[/math]?

>>9928928
>tfw too intelligent

>>9933774

>>9933703
Around equations (14) and (15), Delta y+ goes to zero due to the definition of the limit. The issue is how to define Delta y^+ between d/dz' and d/dz^+

>>9933685
>Statement 2 means that statement 3 is not allowed.
No, you dense schizo. If you have a=b*c then you have f(a)=f(b*c) for any function. This is so simple that even people from /pol/ can understand it. Statement 1 imply statement 3 INDEPENDENTLY of statement 2, how can't you grasp something so simple?

>>9934939
How can you not grasp that cosine only takes numbers like
x = 0 hat inf + x hat 1 ?

>>9935690
>How can you not grasp that cosine only takes numbers like
>x = 0 hat inf + x hat 1 ?
Because when you take the limit x going to infinity on 0 hat inf + x hat 1, you get hat x=hat infinity according to you, so you explanation is bullshit.

>>9935737
You fail to understand that although the two quantities are equal, the labels are different. One is allowed in the cosine, the other isn't?

WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE CHANCES THAT "STRZOK" WAS ORGANIZING THOSE IGNORANTLY DETRACTIVE POSTS IN THESE THREADS?

Also, what do you think are the chances that "Strzok" is pseudonym derived from "Strong Z ok," as in "Strong zeta ok" in reference to the zeta mind control system of the MK Ultra program ?

>>9935690
>>9935737
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but 'hat'?

>>9935839
These symbols are "one hat" and "infinity hat." The hat is an instruction to treat the quantity like a basis vector. This affects the order of operations and, for infinity, it cancels the tendency of the symbol to eat the other symbols.

>>9935828
>You fail to understand that although the two quantities are equal, the labels are different. One is allowed in the cosine, the other isn't?
"They are equal, but different".... So, how can they be the same and different at the same time? You are only trying to bullshit out of the hole you have dig yourself.
Explain how now infinity times hat 1 is NOT hat infinity.

>>9935839
>Sorry if this is a dumb question, but 'hat'?
It's the stupid notation of Tooker. He consider that the infinity should behave differently (and not be an absorbing element). But it's totally inconsistent. It's so inconsistent that, at some point, his definition implied 1=infinity (see >>9928470, >>9928666 and >>9928672)

>>9935848
Since you refuse to acknowledge the definition
cos(hat inf) = undefined ,

I don't see a point to answer your other questions with other definitions.

>>9935847
I don't grasp what it would mean to treat infinity as a basis vector.

>>9935854
>Since you refuse to acknowledge the definition
>cos(hat inf) = undefined
I acknowledge it, I have no problem with that. I only say that
[math] \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \cos (x \cdot \hat{1} ) =\cos (\infty \cdot \hat{1} )=\cos (\hat{\infty} ) [/math]
INDEPENDENTLY of [math]\cos (\hat{\infty} ) [/math] being defined or not. You can't disentangle hat 1 from hat infinity.

>I don't see a point to answer your other questions with other definitions.
Those are YOUR definitions, don't try to bullshit out of your grave.

>>9935862
>I don't grasp what it would mean to treat infinity as a basis vector.
He wants to create something like "the reals" and "the reals times infinity" and treat it like a vector.

>>9935862
If you explain to me that you understand what it means to treat something as a basis vector then I can bridge your knowledge.

>>9935863
>He wants to create something like "the reals" and "the reals times infinity" and treat it like a vector.
Well, good luck getting that algebra to work.

Although Hamilton managed quaternions, so who knows.

>>9935867
>Well, good luck getting that algebra to work.
he hasn't

>>9935863
>I only say that
You're saying that a defined quantity is equal to undefined quantity but that is not a valid mathematical relationship.

>>9935873
the mathematical relationship between them is an unavoidable outcome of your own system. covering your eyes and shouting "nuh uh it's not" won't change that fact

>>9935873
>You're saying that a defined quantity is equal to undefined quantity but that is not a valid mathematical relationship.
That is called "a contradiction". If the computation is correct (and it is), it means that one of the assumptions is incorrect, maybe the quantity that you consider well defined is actually ill defined....

>>9935875
Exactly. It's a contradiction in his assumptions.

>>9935867
>good luck getting that algebra to work.
Thanks, I think it's like some algebra that already exists and I don't anticipate a problem. However, not being a mathematician, honestly I don't even know exactly what you mean by "the algebra." I have a pretty good idea, but I can't say exactly what it means for "the algebra to work."

>>9935867
>>9935878

>>9935877
>it means that one of the assumptions is incorrect
I agree and I point to his assumption that he can use the hat inf label inside the cosine when there is a rule that say, "You're not allowed to use the hat inf label inside the cosine!"

>>9933966
>Around equations (14) and (15), Delta y+ goes to zero due to the definition of the limit. The issue is how to define Delta y^+ between d/dz' and d/dz^+
What is the relation between z' and z+?

You seem to be doing some strange stuff in equations 10 to 13, and then not using any of it in equation 14 and 15. I assume we have

[eqn] z^{+} = x^{+} + i y^{+}[/eqn]

correct?

>>9935886
>I agree and I point to his assumption that he can use the hat inf label inside the cosine when there is a rule that say, "You're not allowed to use the hat inf label inside the cosine!"
You are dense.... Again: the problem is that, even if you don't allow hat infinity inside the cosine, you can make it appear when you take the limit. Let's follow these simple steps:
1. You can have x times hat 1 inside the cosine.
2. And you can take the limit when x goes to infinity
3. But infinity times hat 1 is hat infinity.
Then hat infinity appears naturally even if you don't want.

>>9935902
Jon doesn't do limits, only plugging the value [math]\infty[/math] straight in the equation.

>>9935906
Even doing it in his crappy way, the problem is still there.

>>9935892
x is the same in all three z:
z' = x + iy'
z+ = x + iy+
z- = x - iy-

>>9935902
In step three you are moving the hat from one to infinity, and that is not allowed inside the cosine, you fucking imbecile.

>>9935906
>Jon doesn't do limits,
What is the limit as x --> 5 of
f(x) = x ?

It's 5 isn't it? Don't all limits work like that?

>>9935838
>everyone is out to get me
Take your pills.

>>9936031
If it was everyone they would have gotten me.

>>9936020
>Don't all limits work like that?
Nope, for example in
[eqn] \lim_{x\rightarrow 2} \frac{x^2-5x+6}{\sqrt{x^3+3x^2-24x+28}} [/eqn]
you can't just substitute 2. You have to do something before.

>In step three you are moving the hat from one to infinity, and that is not allowed inside the cosine, you fucking imbecile.
FINALLY, something resembling an answer..... You could have said that since the beginning instead of repeating "it's not defined" over and over again.
So, let me see if I understand it: [math] \infty \hat{1}=\hat{\infty} [/math] but when it is inside the cosine the identity doesn't hold..... That seems oddly specific. Does it happen also with the sine? What about the log? And special functions like Bessel, Hermite or Hypergeometric? Does you identity between infinity and hat infinity only holds on polynomial or it is only true for f(x)=x?

>>9936964
This argument matters because?

[math]\begin{array}{l}
\phi =-\frac{(-1)^{2/3}}{\sqrt[3]{2} \sqrt[3]{n}} \\
n\in \mathbb{Z} \\
n\geq 1 \\
\end{array}[/math]

>>9936964
[math]\frac{49}{x^3}=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty } \frac{1}{2} \left(49 (-1)^n (n+1) (n+2)\right) (x-1)^n\text{/;}\left| 1-x\right| <1[/math]

>>9936964
>That seems oddly specific
It seems oddly to specific to you to preserve the ordinary definition of cosine as a function of a pure number?

>>9937039
>It seems oddly to specific to you to preserve the ordinary definition of cosine as a function of a pure number?
It seems to me odd that you have [math] \infty \hat{1}=\hat{\infty} [/math] but [math] \cos (\infty \hat{1})\neq \cos (\hat{\infty}) [/math]. In which other functions does it happen?
Does [math] \sin(\infty \hat{1}) = \sin(\hat{\infty}) [/math] hold?
Does [math] J_n (\infty \hat{1}) = J_n (\hat{\infty}) [/math] hold for any value of n?
Does [math] (\infty \hat{1})^n = (\hat{\infty})^n [/math] hold for any value of n different from 1?
They are your definitions not mine....
Also, do I have to remember you that you were the first to say that [math] \cos (x \hat{\infty})=\cos (x) \hat{\infty} [/math] and you vehemently defended that definition until someone proved to you that it implied that 1=infinity? If someone here don't care about preserving definitions, that one is you.

>>9937212
>Does [math] \sin(\infty \hat{1}) = \sin(\hat{\infty}) [/math] hold?
This question is profoundly stupid, like you.

>>9937457
if it's stupid it should be easy to answer, so why don't you?

>>9937473
>why don't you?
Why don't you work it out on your own and then ask me to critique your work? I know why... it's because you have no genuine interest in the answer.

>>9937513
no, it's because i don't know enough math to do it. i'm just a spectator here.

OP is the king of brainlets

>>9937457
>This question is profoundly stupid, like you.
The question is not so stupid if you where saying that [math] \cos (\infty \hat{1})= \cos (\hat{\infty}) [/math] was true less than a week ago.... And somebody else had to convince you that it was wrong.....
Then, which of the equations from >>9937212 hold, sine? Bessel? Polynomial? Hermite? Rational functions?

thanks for reminding me why physics people should stick to physics

>>9927838
The "+1=2" seems redundant. Why not just "=1"?

>>9937641
It looks better. Also, it is the form of the virial theorem which is very important in physics.

>>9937677
>Also, it is the form of the virial theorem which is very important in physics.
No, it is not. The virial theorem is
[eqn] \langle E_{kin} \rangle=\frac{n}{2} \langle V(r) \rangle [/eqn]
where V(r)=a r^n.
You are a liar and a schizo.

>>9935878
>but I can't say exactly what it means for "the algebra to work."
For it to make logical sense without contradiction or being trivial.

>>9937457
I've only been vaguely following, but is \infty \hat{1}=\hat{\infty} true in your system? Now you also have \cos(\infty \hat{1}) \ne \cos(\hat{\infty})
because \cos(\hat{\infty}) is undefined? So I must wonder: is \cos(\infty \hat{1}) defined? If so, you've got some real problems (specifically that cosine is no longer a well-defined function and calculations involving it are likely nonsense).

>>9937801
>is \cos(\infty \hat{1}) defined? If so, you've got some real problems
Yes, according to Jonathan "The Lord" Tooker, it's defined and equal to one. And, indeed, I'm trying to make him understand the problems associated to that.
However, he finally said that \infty \hat{1}=\hat{\infty} is true but not inside the cosine, that's why I'm asking him for which function this property is still there and in which isn't (>>9937212). But he dismisses it as trivial in the reply below.

>>9936020
>z+ = x + iy+

You could argue that [math] \Delta z^+ \to 0[/math] implies that both [math]\Delta x \to 0[/math] and [math] \Delta y^+ \to 0[/math]. My question is why we are not doing this, as you are clearly letting [math]\Delta y^+ \to \infty[/math] in equations 12-13.

>>9937876
Even if you ignore the thing with the infinity-hats, there is still a major calculation error in his paper.

Pic related, it should be [math]\Delta y^+ \to 0[/math], even if you include his calculations with infinity. Correcting this and actually letting [math]\Delta y^+ \to 0[/math] entirely destroys his argument, he tries to repair it here >>9933674 but it's just complete nonsense.

>>9927838
Recent picture of OP

>>9937951
>there is still a major calculation error in his paper.
All his papers are filled with major errors.... Read pic related and laugh...
[eqn] G=G^* \text{ and } G^2=\pi \Rightarrow G G^*=\pi \Rightarrow G=\pm \sqrt{\pi} \text{ or } \pm i \sqrt{\pi} [/eqn]
contradicting that he imposed G=G^* at the beginning.

>>9937963
Not so far from reality....

>>9937683
>The virial theorem is
https://www.bragitoff.com/2017/04/expectation-value-1r-hydrogen-using-virial-theorem-quantum-mechanics/

>>9937779
That's good. That means I do know what it means and I did get it to work. I used a spinor algebra:
>Time Arrow Spinors for the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1807.0454

>>9937801
You have to be a lot more clear about what you mean by "my system." I didn't need "hypercomplex analysis" to get this result about sine and cosine. I only used extended complex analysis. Except for pic related, nothing from "my system" goes into the proof. Since I know what cos(x) has to be at infinity, I deduced that the purely real, non-extended analysis converge to the extended value. So for present purposes, my system is pic related, not the hat, which I only suggested in this thread as a way to remember the correct order of operations regarding the absorptive properties of infinity. However, if you think about hat one and hat infinity as the basis of a 2D array, then it is obvious why you can't put array-valued quantities inside the cosine. You need to use a projection operator on the hypercomplex hat number to extract a real or extended real number that can go in the cosine.

When you ask, "Is infinity hat one = hat infinity?," that can only refer to the extended real case. Since we aim to go beyond infinity in the transfinite hypercomplex analysis, and we want to introduce a new feature, I say that infinity hat one = hat infinity.
> infinity hat one = hat infinity.

>>9937876
>Jonathan "The Lord" Tooker
My middle name is Warren.

>>9937938
These two distinct cases refer to when the limit is generated by the d/dz' operator or the d/dz+ operator. If you use either of them, you can convert the other one to derive the values which are needed to deduce the limits in the paper. Here I mean, if use d/dz+ then we would get Delta y' = infinity and the result remains robust.

>>9937951
>major calculation error
that is your own calculation error when you do do not recognize
h+ = infinity - h'

If you convert the y+ in Delta y+ then you also need to convert the h+ in Delta y-. Otherwise you are adding a hypercomplex number to a complex number, and that is not allowed.

>>9937963
this is bullshit

>>9937979
It was my intention to show that contradiction, that's why I wrote that paper.
>On Wick Rotation
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1603.0371

>>9938114
>>9937979
OP after buying a new ride with Fields medal money.

>>9937988
>>The virial theorem is
>https://www.bragitoff.com/2017/04/expectation-value-1r-hydrogen-using-virial-theorem-quantum-mechanics/
You are dumb, dense, a schizo and also INCAPABLE OF READING. Read your pic again:
"Virial Theorem states that for stationary states,
[math] 2 \langle T \rangle = \langle r \frac{\partial V}{\partial r} \rangle [/math]"
You have highlighted the definition of the total energy, not the Viral Theorem, you illiterate schizo.

>>9938038
>I only used extended complex analysis.
And it has been proven that you did it wrong, >>9937951, but you only are not able to admit it.

>Since I know what cos(x) has to be at infinity,
You "know" but you haven't proved it.

>However, if you think about hat one and hat infinity as the basis of a 2D array, then it is obvious why you can't put array-valued quantities inside the cosine.
If that is true, even the hat one terms can't be put inside the cosine....
Oh, wait.... Now you say that you have to project it.... But how do you project hat infinity? As a zero because is not multiplied by hat 1 or as an infinity because it's equal to infinity times hat 1? Inconsistencies everywhere....

>When you ask, "Is infinity hat one = hat infinity?," that can only refer to the extended real case. Since we aim to go beyond infinity in the transfinite hypercomplex analysis, and we want to introduce a new feature, I say that infinity hat one = hat infinity.
Then...... Does that statement means then that infinity=1? Because that's what it means according to your logic... You have said before that infinity times hat 1 is hat infinity, and now you say that hat 1 is hat infinity, that means that 1=infinity.
YOUR ANSWERS ARE INCONSISTENT

>>9938114
>It was my intention to show that contradiction, that's why I wrote that paper.
That's a contradiction... in your own math, not in the computation of the integral, you bungler schizo.

>>9938874
>virial
You have identified the implication of the virial theorem for the 1/r potential, I suppose because it is the one in the pic. Since you think this is what the virial theorem says for stationary states, and not simply for the stationary states of the 1/r potential, I can see you are ignorant, and know little to nothing about it.

>has been proven that you did it wrong
you're wrong

> you haven't proved it.
I have, and later I'm going to prove something to you about the facts of life that you're not going to like at all!

>even the hat one terms can't be put inside the cosine
You're obviously not familiar with the properties of the identity. Later, I will teach you something about my identity and you're not going to want acknowledge that either, you surely won't.

>That's a contradiction... in your own math
Yes, you have identified the contradiction I demonstrated with my own math. However, you have not identified what I am going to do to you with my own hand, and that is a grievous error with which you are too little concerned.

I know you don't believe that you're throwing anyone's life away by making these stupid posts, but you are and I'm telling you now so that I can enjoy telling you that I told you so when you fall into my hands later.

>>9938106
In this case your derivative does not work since you can’t let [math]\Delta z^+\to 0[/math].

>>9939335
>Since you think this is what the virial theorem says for stationary states, and not simply for the stationary states of the 1/r potential, I can see you are ignorant, and know little to nothing about it.
I was only quoting your pic, that something everybody could understand because of my use of quotation marks.
Also, I wrote the general viral theorem in >>9937683, but you didn't care about it.

>and know little to nothing about it.
Says the one who highlighted the total energy and said it was the viral theorem....

>>has been proven that you did it wrong
>you're wrong
Your inability to see it don't change the truth.

>You're obviously not familiar with the properties of the identity.
That's what happens when you refuse to give the precise axioms you use.... The last entire thread was people asking you for your axioms and you refusing to give them.

>Later, I will teach you something about my identity and you're not going to want acknowledge that either, you surely won't.
Because I'm sure it's totally wrong.... Like the rest of your formulas.

>Yes, you have identified the contradiction I demonstrated with my own math.
"I impose G=G^*, so G should be real. But I decide to keep imaginary roots, so the original equation was wrong".

>I know you don't believe that you're throwing anyone's life away by making these stupid posts
I know and I enjoy every minute of it.

>I can enjoy telling you that I told you so when you fall into my hands later.
Doubt it.

Now, let's go back to the question you are not answering:
1. Is [math] \sin (\infty \hat{1}) [/math] equal to [math] \sin ( \hat{\infty}) [/math]?
2. Is [math] \log(\infty \hat{1}) [/math] equal to [math] \log( \hat{\infty}) [/math]?
3. For which values of n is [math] J_n (\infty \hat{1}) [/math] equal to [math] J_n ( \hat{\infty}) [/math]?
4. For which values of n is[math] (\infty \hat{1})^n [/math] equal to [math] ( \hat{\infty})^n [/math]?

>>9939335
>I know you don't believe that you're throwing anyone's life away by making these stupid posts, but you are and I'm telling you now so that I can enjoy telling you that I told you so when you fall into my hands later.
>believe my dodgy math or i'll kill you

>>9939686
>Says the one who highlighted the total energy and said it was the viral theorem....
For the harmonic oscillator,
<T> = <V>

>Doubt it.
you or the people that operate your software, I will have my satisfaction.

>>9940092
Recent photo of OP working on his next paper.

>>9940092
>>Says the one who highlighted the total energy and said it was the viral theorem....
>For the harmonic oscillator,
><T> = <V>
Read >>9937683 again, you illiterate schizo:
[eqn] \langle E_{kin} \rangle=\frac{n}{2} \langle V(r) \rangle [/eqn]
for a potential of the form [math[ V(r)=\alpha r^n [/math]. It seems that you are not even able to read...

>you or the people that operate your software, I will have my satisfaction.
Doubt it.

Now, let's go back to the question you are not answering:
1. Is [math] \sin( \infty \hat{1}) [/math] equal to [math] \sin(\hat{\infty}) [/math]?
2. Is [math] \log( \infty \hat{1}) [/math] equal to [math] \log(\hat{\infty}) [/math]?
3. For which values of n is [math] J_n ( \infty \hat{1}) [/math] equal to [math] J_n (\hat{\infty}) [/math]?
4. For which values of n is [math] ( \infty \hat{1})^n [/math] equal to [math] (\hat{\infty})^n [/math]?

>>9940103
For sure.

>>9940646
>Now, let's go back to the question you are not answering:
Since hat does not appear in the paper, your straw man about hat does not pique my interest.

>>9940840
"I'm too dumb to answer it, so I'm going to dismiss your question as trivial".

>>9940923
I'm going to express my hate toward the enemy I have: him who is the one orchestrating this nonsense. My physics/math resume and book writing resume all say I am very well-suited to employment in those areas, and yet they was no issue with me back when I was requesting corporate representation to be some woman's office bitch based my my fake resume which was full of NOTORIOUS lies.

>>9941591
no one's orchestrating it and your resume qualifies you to be a janitor and that's about it

>>9936020
>Don't all limits work like that?
according to you, no they don't. remember when in a previous thread I asked you to evaluate lim sqrt(n^2 + 4*n) - n at infinity using your approach and you handwaved about linearity? so now it's all limits so kindly substitute inf hat or whatever you are going on about and report the limit.

>>9941660
I'm not interested in technical discussions beyond the technical details in the paper which are self-evidently axiomatically self-reliant. However, since you posted a question which is relevant to the theme, one which contains a properly formatted mathematical proposition which I can uniquely identify, I will have a look. This link says the answer is two, do you concur?
https://www.symbolab.com/solver/limit-calculator/%5Clim_%7Bx%5Cto%5Cinfty%7D%5Cleft(%5Csqrt%7Bx%5E%7B2%7D%2B4x%7D%5Cright)-x

wtf is op trying to prove?

>>9941701
It's in the title of the paper.

>clear as crystal
>btw

>>9941727
but what it even means, its obvious that sin and cos don't converge. if what op were trying to prove was true then cos(∞) =x, so cos(∞+π/2)=-x what is a contradiction? I can't see how op can disprove it

>>9941591
>I'm going to express my hate toward the enemy I have
Thank you, your hate strengthen me.

>him who is the one orchestrating this nonsense
I'm only making questions, the only nonsense here is your pseudomath and your schizophrenia.

> I am very well-suited to employment in those areas
That's why you said that the definition of the total energy was the Viral Theorem...

>my fake resume which was full of NOTORIOUS lies
You have admitted here that you sexually harassed two women... That's a truth even you admitted it (of course not directly, only when you told us the story).

>>9941689
>I'm not interested in technical discussions beyond the technical details in the paper which are self-evidently axiomatically self-reliant
"I'm already cornered and I don't know how to get out, so I'm going to dismiss all the questions".

>>9941750
>so cos(∞+π/2)=-x what is a contradiction?
We had threads and threads about that, but Tooker answers vary and are either "infinity is the largest number, so infinity plus something is not well defined" or just "infinity and infinity plus pi half are equal, so my computation is fine".
He tried to dismiss using some notation (the hat 1 and hat infinity you can see in this thread) but his definitions were so absurd and inconsistent that felt into several contradictions (and he kept changing the definitions so he can always be right).

And, now, back to the questions you keep evading (I'm tired of using math commands, and you already know what I'm referring to):
1. Is sin(∞ hat 1) equal to sin(hat infinity)?
2. Is log(∞ hat 1) equal to log(hat infinity)?
3. For which values of n is J_n (∞ hat 1) equal to J_n (hat infinity)?
4. For which values of n is (∞ hat 1)^n equal to (hat infinity)^n?
I'm only trying to understand when your definition of infinity times hat 1 equal to hat infinity works and when it doesn't, because you are not consistent in that.

>>9941750
pic related, it shows that it does converge when you consider the final n points instead of the first n points. The first n points do not matter for the convergence of the final n points.

http://is2.4chan.org/sci/1533412394203.png

>>9941809
>Thank you, your hate strengthen me.
What good is it to gain the whole world if you lose your soul?

>the questions you keep evading
you can keep telling yourself that I am wrong to evade them, these questions that you have conjured are not relevant. You fail to show to their relevance and instead you refer, over and over, to the undemonstrated relevance.

>>9941750
you dont even need to look at the notation to see its wrong, and this argument works even when you subtract

>>9941854
but how it disproves my argument? and besides that n inst a natural number as this detractor guy said

>>9941864
meant to
>>9941809
and infinite isn a number dude >>9941854 # when people say something is defined at infinite they mean that its convergent and has a limit which sin function clearly lacks

>>9928263
one of those goes to infinity faster, thus it has a different cardinality at any given point

you cannot treat infinity as if it belongs to the real number set. It does not have the same properties.


fuuuuuck

>>9941809
>"I'm already cornered and I don't know how to get out, so I'm going to dismiss all the questions".
That's you. You're cornered and you have nothing but attempts to raise the proverbial straw man, and you do not consider or criticize the content of the paper.

>>9927838
y^+ = infty - y' with y^+ in R is nonsense

>>9941913
how so?

>>9941689
of course the answer is 2. I just wanted to see how does your formalism deal with it.

>>9942645
>I just wanted to see how does your formalism deal with it.
It doesn't he will keep evading the question

>>9941854
>it shows that it does converge when you consider the final n points instead of the first n points
"It does converge when I redefine the sequence taking out the pi/2".

>>9941862
>What good is it to gain the whole world if you lose your soul?
I didn't have one to begin with, that's why.

>>9941864
>you dont even need to look at the notation to see its wrong, and this argument works even when you subtract
Because, for some reason cos(x-y)=cos(x) cos(y) +sin (x) sin(y) doesn't work at infinity.... (It's related with the infinity is equal to infinity plus pi/2, but only sometimes.... Only when I need it to be that way. Other times they are different).

>>9941895
>you cannot treat infinity as if it belongs to the real number set. It does not have the same properties.
That's the reason why he introduces infinity hat. He did it so he could keep the 2. It's something like: usual infinity is an absorbing element but hat infinity is not, so he can make the manipulations and, and the end, put hat infinity equal to infinity times hat 1 (where hat 1 represent usual real numbers).
However, it was proven that combining this way of doing it with his limit of the cosine, then you get 1=infinity (here >>9928470, and here is where he finally sees the light >>9928666 >>9928672)
He then argues that cos (hat infinity) is not defined. But because hat infinity is equal to infinity times hat 1 that means that cos (infinity) is also not defined.
.Cornered again, he says that hat infinity is equal to infinity hat 1 only when those quantities are not inside the cosine. Thus I keep asking him what happens with other functions, but he keeps evading the question as "not interesting".

>>9941905
>That's you. You're cornered and you have nothing
I'm not the one evading question....

>>9942683
>for some reason cos(x-y)=cos(x) cos(y) +sin (x) sin(y) doesn't work at infinity.
Do you think that has something do with all finite differences from infinity being equal to infinity?

>I'm not the one evading question....
You are the one who has raised the questions which are not related to the OP paper

>>9942269
>how so?
in what structure is this equation formulated? because it cannot be a field. What does the infinity symbol mean? if y^+- is real and thus finite then it cannot be a difference between infinity and some other number. The operations are simply not defined.

>>9942921
>in what structure is this equation formulated?
I don't understand this question.

>What does the infinity symbol mean?
First, you tell me what you thought it meant after reading the paper and then I will examine what you wrote.

>if y^+- is real
After reading the paper, what did you intuition tell you about these questions? When you read, "This paper examines some familiar results from complex analysis in the framework of hypercomplex analysis," did it make you think that the paper was about real analysis and that all the quantities were real?

>The operations are simply not defined.
What was your take on the definitions used for the equations in the paper?

>>9942924
>I don't understand this question.
then you should go back to calculus I. you are using operations between elements and assume for example that an additive inverse exists for y'. this makes assumptions about the underlying structure you are using, e.g. in a field this would be true. But infinity is not part of a field, because it has no multiplicative inverse.

so which structure are you using?
>First, you tell me what you thought it meant after reading the paper and then I will examine what you wrote
no idea honestly, it makes no sense, see below:

>did it make you think that the paper was about real analysis and that all the quantities were real?
No, but the very statement in the paper
>y^+- in (0, infinity)
made me think this. you are LITERALLY stating that y^+- is an element of the OPEN interval from 0 to infinity. Thus, by any convention known to me, you are stating that y^+- is real.

>>9938106
Jon seriously, if you have [math]\Delta y^+ \to\infty[/math] and [math]\Delta z^+ = \Delta x + i \Delta y^+[/math], then how exactly can you say that [math]\Delta z^+ \to 0[/math]?

>>9942929
still waiting for my reply, The Lord

>>9943101
We better wait some more for The Lord to grace us with his ingenious insights

>>9942860
>You are the one who has raised the questions which are not related to the OP paper
that's not how this works Jon. you don't just drop your papers like they're the ten commandments and then walk away. professional math is a conversation, not a monologue.

no, the questions might not be immediately relevant to your paper. however, they're natural extensions of the theories you've proposed. people are taking your ideas and running with them and seeing where they lead. it's in your best interest to play along with people asking these questions, because it makes your theory stronger and people might discover something new you hadn't even considered.

>>9942924
still no reply, where are you mate?

>>9942860
>>for some reason cos(x-y)=cos(x) cos(y) +sin (x) sin(y) doesn't work at infinity.
>Do you think that has something do with all finite differences from infinity being equal to infinity?
If [math]x-(x-1)=1[/math] implies that [math] \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} x-(x-1)=1[/math], why shouldn't I use the same logic with the cosine?

>>9942860
>>I'm not the one evading question....
>You are the one who has raised the questions which are not related to the OP paper
I refer you to a excellent answer form >>9943127.

Now, let me ask again:
1. Is sin(∞ hat 1) equal to sin(hat infinity)?
2. Is log(∞ hat 1) equal to log(hat infinity)?
3. For which values of n is J_n (∞ hat 1) equal to J_n (hat infinity)?
4. For which values of n is (∞ hat 1)^n equal to (hat infinity)^n?

Figured you'd appreciate it.

[math]\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }\sin \left(\frac{\sqrt[12]{\pi } x y^2
z^3}{\phi ^3}\right)d\phi dzdydx=0[/math]

>>9942929
>But infinity is not part of a field, because it has no multiplicative inverse.
I have proposed to use
hat infinity = hat Phi^n

where
hat Phi^-n hat Phi^n = hat Phi^0 = hat 1

Although I do not know the precise definition of field beyond its context in physics, I do not foresee the absence of the multiplicative inverse of infinity in the full hypercomplex analysis. When the extended real line is extended to the hyprerral line across many levels of infinitude, I use an affine parameter
gamma(inf)=Phi

The reason I am reluctant to say what the infinity symbols means is twofold. I don't know what the basic math definitions of many things are when it comes to making statements in pure math, I am only fluent in mathematical physics. Second, I have not proposed to change the meaning of the infinity symbol, so it seems like you may be trying to raise a straw man.

If I ask, "How could the reader think I have used a special definition for infinity?" I must answer, "Since I can do the order of operations in a way that is different, the result is not robust, even though the paper does show how to do it in the way that is robust." To this I say, "If you write the hat on the infinity symbol, then you can only do the operations in the right order by treating like a basis element." So when, even then, you inquiring about the meaning of the symbol rather than the order of operations, I am not sure what you are getting at by asking the "meaning" of the infinity symbol. It means "infinity."

We have earlier results which show it is not a real number, it is the biggest extended real number, and it is just another hyperreal number. I built hypercomplex analysis by multiplying it times the imaginary number, not by redefining the infinity symbol.

>>9942929
>made me think this. you are LITERALLY stating that y^+- is an element of the OPEN interval from 0 to infinity. Thus, by any convention known to me, you are stating that y^+- is real.

Ok, I see you there, wink wink. You will say
infinity - x = infinity
C infinity = infinity

so none of the operations are defined and the analysis falls apart. I aim to define these operations as the ones that are understood when the hat identifies a basis element like, for instance, a basis vector. I haven't done that yet, and I made a point not to put it into the paper because I didn't want to use excessively non-standard notation where I can't claim, "This gives the same answer," because taking the hat off infinity doesn't give the same answer.

Now I have a question for you. How does my result depend on whether or not y+ is a field?

>>9943788
mate i was talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

calculus I, lecture ~2

>>9943804
>so none of the operations are defined and the analysis falls apart
yes thats true

>>9943892
When I was in college I was reluctant to take algebra electives because I though I already learned algebra in middle school and high school! I took a lot of calculus and analysis and I feel a lot better discussing calculus and analysis.

I got As in all three semesters of USA calculus and I never anyone talk about a field like that. In my second lecture of calculus I, we were still doing limits.

>>9943893
Do you agree that if you do the order of operations in the way that they are defined in the paper then the framework is robust and does not fall apart? Do you agree that these are the order of operations usually attributed to the hat symbol?

>>9927838
>Derivation of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
Oh shit nigger what the fuck are you doing

Brainlet here. I have several questions, given that I am not a theoretical mathematics student, but the most obvious one I can ask is
>It follows directly that
>cos(∞) = 1 (26)
>sin(∞) = ∞ . (27)
This seems pretty clearly false, and doesn't seem to directly follow from
>cos(∞) + i*sin(∞) = 1 + i∞ (25)
I mean, couldn't you do
>i*cos(∞) - sin(∞) = i + i∞
>-cos(∞) - i*sin(∞) = -1 + i∞
>1 + i∞ = -1 + i∞
>2 = 0

>>9943939
>This seems pretty clearly false, and doesn't seem to directly follow from
It follows because the real part of the left side has to be equal to the real part of the right, and likewise for the imaginary parts.

>I mean, couldn't you do
On your first line, you have multiplied the whole left by i, but you have not done so on the right so the equality is invalid.

>>9943974
Okay, well, I assumed that since you raised i to an infinite power, it wouldn't matter. But, well, suppose it did. Then shouldn't
>i*cos(∞) - sin(∞) = i + i * i∞
>cos(∞) = (1 + i∞)
>-sin(∞) = 0
?

>>9943998
I don't see how infinity got into the exponent on the imaginary number.

>>9944034
I dunno why, I thought that was placed in exponent position for some reason. Must be even more tired than I thought. Oh well.
But still, doesn't sin(∞) = ∞ break the range of sine values and thus sort of violate the logic of sine? By Pythagorean identity and such? Pretty sure that means something broke earlier on. Like I said, I'm kind of in brainlet mode.
Gonna look at this more when I'm not a zombie, I guess.

>>9943974
>It follows because the real part of the left side has to be equal to the real part of the right
That's not right. If you have
[math] \cos (\infty) +i \sin (\infty) =1+i \infty [/math]
you can deduce that
[math] Re[ \cos (\infty) ]-Im [\sin (\infty) ]=1 [/math]
You haven't proven that the sine of infinity is purely real.

>>9944290
Good observation! Just like he says here >>9937979 that the real integral might be complex.

>>9943788
>hat infinity = hat Phi^n
>where
>hat Phi^-n hat Phi^n = hat Phi^0 = hat 1
This raises some questions: for which n is Phi^n equal to hat infinity? Is there an inverse to hat infinity? If yes, is it 0 or another number?

>Although I do not know the precise definition of field beyond its context in physics
That's basic math. You are admitting you don't know basic math.

>I don't know what the basic math definitions of many things are when it comes to making statements in pure math
Nevertheless, you like to pontificate that infinity times hat 1 is equal to hat infinity but cos (infinity times hat 1) is not equal to hat infinity for some weird reason... (Well, yes, only because you need cos( hat infinity) not to be defined because, if you can define it, your whole "theory" falls apart).

> I have not proposed to change the meaning of the infinity symbol
Your inability to give us the precise properties of hat infinity proves the contrary.

>>9943907
>I was reluctant to take algebra electives because I though I already learned algebra in middle school and high school!
You seem proud of not learning actual algebra... Your reasoning seems like "I took Calculus 1, why should I take Calculus 2? I'm sure it's the same thing...."

>>9944098
>Gonna look at this more when I'm not a zombie, I guess.
It won't make much more sense.... Trust me.

>>9944290
>You haven't proven that the sine of infinity is purely real.
This doesn't need to be proven for real-valued functions

>>9944307
>This raises some question
It does. What are your thoughts on them and why do you want me to answer them for you when you demonstrate no attempt to figure it out?

> inability to give us the precise properties
The precise properties are those properties precisely laid out in the paper.

>You seem proud of not learning actual algebra
You seem like you phrase everything as negatively as you can.

>>9927838
Can someone just kill him already?

>>9944704
One of my coworkers at Exide, one whose name plaque was on his office door facing my short route to the break room, was named Stuart Aspey.

>>9944913
>>9944913
One time I noticed that my workers were using a general purpose obfuscator schema whose table used two unique ID columns whose name contained the word "dirt." I think one was "dirt" and the other was "dirt scientology." I queried the table to list all possible combinations of the unique ID in SQL Server, and I saw that the name of every person in the office, except for me, was listed in there. This made me think that everyone in the office except for me was using an alias in non-computerized face to face interactions. In a real business, PII shouldn't be stored in that table. However, in a certain iteration of the unique ID there appeared a list of every other person in the office, one row for each name. When I look on Google maps, it says the desk where I quit my job in January of 2017 was actually inside the Milton, GA PD HQ.

>>9944925
What in the fuck does this have to do with anything.

>>9944929
Because my coworker was also using Aspey as an alias.

>>9944949
>>9944929
And he Aspey is saying, "Kill him," maybe in reference to me, and my coworker at Exide Sandy had written on her whiteboard the whole time I worked there, "Send M3" with a bunch of numerical codes, likely meaning to kill me, and we never talked about M3 at work, and she never wrote anything on that white board while I was there.

>>9944702
>>You haven't proven that the sine of infinity is purely real.
>This doesn't need to be proven for real-valued functions
Why not? Do you remember >>9937979, a well defined real valued integral that you say it can be purely imaginary?

>why do you want me to answer them for you when you demonstrate no attempt to figure it out?
Because your definitions are so inconsistent that I'm not sure anymore. Remember when it was clear that 1=infinity with your definitions but you decided to change them?

>The precise properties are those properties precisely laid out in the paper.
Write them here then.

>You seem like you phrase everything as negatively as you can.
Because that drives you mad.

>>9943909
>Do you agree that if you do the order of operations in the way that they are defined in the paper then the framework is robust and does not fall apart
no because you do not define what you mean when you say infinity + y' = real so everything falls apart. instead of giving me a definition here you jump around so I assume you do not know how to do that which means you did not think what you wrote in that paper through

Stop giving the schizo attention and he'll go bother some other internet community.

It's probably that time Helene filed, with Joe, the fraudulent affidavit which Helene used to have about six or eight cops burst into my apartment and put my Hannibal Lecter restraints, and then take me against my will through what was literally two weeks of enslavement according to the definition of the slavery in the amendment that abolishes it, during which time the doctor, or an imposter, said I was a paranoid schizophrenic after I identified the government as a likely culprit when she asked me to speculate regarding the cause of my problematic research status.

That ISIS org jabhat al-nusra probably gets its name from Helene's job hat as a nurse. I think it is obviously Helene's social engineering gimmick, derived from her expertise in mental health jargon and its legal technicality, that she has used her $95 affidavit, a lie, an accomplice or two, Joe and likely the doctor, and two signatures to completely steer the history of the universe.

>>9945133
>against my will through what was literally two weeks of enslavement according to the definition of the slavery in the amendment that abolishes it
Were you forced to pick cotton in the middle of the summer for no salary?

>>9945133
This picture is Helene and our neighbor Avis.

pic related, I saw this other picture when Lord Snowdon died. It said it was in Washington, but I recognized it it as Tucson right away. They would a later have a giant stone tablet with Hebrew writing on right where the princess is standing, and I went to Jewish summer camp there two summers before I moved to Georgia. It is where the Tucson JCC was built. The blue dot is where my dad's house was, and the red was my mom's house where Avis would be our neighbor, both dots up in the foothills, a few miles in the distance. However, that giant stone tablet stands today maybe a quarter mile, maximum, from the the fence in this photo.

>>9945168
>Hebrew writing
or Jewish names maybe, like J.W.

>>9927846
>result was disproved ten ways from Sunday
All of your disproofs amounted to, "If we don't do it how you did it in the paper, then it doesn't work." However, I think a studious reader will assume, "I should criticize what he did show, not what he did not show such as self-referential axioms or the extraneous, unrelated cases that are introduced as straw men."

>>9945191
>All of your disproofs amounted to
no, i told you that already your equation y^+- = infinity - y' makes no sense and you were unable to give a definition clearing this up

>>9945191
>"If we don't do it how you did it in the paper, then it doesn't work."
Because your paper is filled with non-sense and inconsistent definitions as pointed by >>9942971 or >>9944290.

>not what he did not show such as self-referential axioms or the extraneous
"Criticize only my stupid result, not my lack of consistency on keeping constants summing or multiplying the infinity nor the contradictory consequences of my method, like the one pointed in >>9941660".

>>9945221
You told me that it makes no sense but you did not demonstrate the nonsense of the order of operations. Saying it isn't enough, and you have only demonstrated cases of alternative orders of operations other than those shown in the paper. These are your straw men.

>>9945240
>You told me that it makes no sense but you did not demonstrate the nonsense of the order of operations
You never explicitly gave the correct order of the operations. State it here.

>>9945230
>my lack of consistency
>>9945230
There is no inconsistency in the paper, it is only inconsistent with your choice of a different order of operations.

>>9945253
>State it here.
The order of operations is the one in the paper.

>>9945253
>State it here.
If you provide a template for what you believe to be a fully specified order of operations, then I will fill it out for the specific one that I use in the paper.

>>9945258
>The order of operations is the one in the paper.
Don't refer us to your article. State the "order of operations" explicitly here with all the details. Are you afraid of the inconsistencies we can find, like the 1=infinity?

>>9945240
>You told me that it makes no sense but you did not demonstrate the nonsense of the order of operations
order of operations? Mate I am talking about A FUCKING INFINITY IN YOUR CALCULATIONS and despite that INFINITY one side of your equation is a REAL number which by definition of the REAL numbers is finite so SMALLER than INFINITY.

how does that equation make sense, tell me

>>9945274
>State the "order of operations" explicitly here with all the details.
I will do that if you provide me a template for what you believe to be a fully specified order of operations.

>>9945310
>how does that equation make sense, tell me
If I see what you are saying, it is because in the paper I have parameterized the complex plane rather than the extended complex plane. The extended complex plane uses y+ in [0,inf) and that resolves the issue you raised regarding y+ in (0,inf). Since I can write the extended complex plane in this way, I deduce that I can write the regular complex plane without real or complex infinity in the same way by simply removing the point at infinity. Do you concede that
inf - inf = 0 ?

>>9945386
>Do you concede that
>inf - inf = 0 ?
no that is wrong. you cant calculate with infinites
inf - inf is simply not defined or has no meaning (which is the same)

>>9945424
>you cant calculate with infinites
consider the property of R numbers X
X - X = 0

Now do the analytic continuation to the extended real numbers. The additive inverse is automatically defined for infinity now because it is an extended real number. What's the problem?

>cant calculate with infinites
Says you. I disagree. See above continuation of the additive inverse.

>>9945424
And if I can say "let sqrt(-1) be a number" and do a valid complex analysis from which the real sector can be extracted, then I can also say "let infinity be a number" and do a valid extended real analysis from which the real sector can be extracted. This is what I've done in the paper.

>>9942645
>of course
I see you stopped harping on this problem after you saw I knew the answer. Therefore, I think you were just giving me a hard problem as a red herring with no interest in the question of whether or not my notation can produce the correct answer. Obviously, it can but since your function is not of form
y = m x + b

I don't want to get lured into that. Note that
y+ = inf - y'

is the correct form. On the LHS, the absorptive property of infinity is suppressed by the y+ symbol, and to keep y' from getting eaten by inf we will need to use hat inf and hat one on the RHS. On both sides, the absorptive property of infinity that destroys the definitions of operations is suppressed and there no undefined operations anywhere in my paper. You can say, "But inf-y'=inf," but I say, "No, there is a one-to-one correspondence between y+ and y' such that absorption is not allowed." One-to-one correspondence is enforced by the definition
y+ = inf - y'

because
y+ in (0,inf)

This is all implicit, and I will write a longer paper this week. It is super obvious, however, from the definition
y+ = inf - y'

with
y+ in (0,inf) that we do not use the absorptive property here.

Stop giving the schizo attention.

>>9945704
是怎樣的'你'希望你是治愈一切讓你難過呀的?

>>9927838
Supposing this guy isn't defining infinity, limits, exponentiation, equality, addition, multiplication, etc. in his own special way:
The statement exp(i*infty) + 1 = 2 means for all sequences {x_n} of real numbers which diverges to positive infty (i.e. for all real numbers M there exists an N such that n > N implies x_n > M) the sequence {y_n = exp(i*x_n)} converges to 1 (i.e. for all e > 0 there exists an N such that n > N implies |x_n - 1| < e). This statement is clearly false: given any sequence x_n for which the statment holds, I can construct another sequence which also diverges to positive infty but for which the statement does not hold.
Let a_n be one such sequence for which the statement holds. Then the sequence {exp(i*a_n)} converges to 1. Take b_n = a_n + pi, and note {b_n} is a sequence which diverges to positive infty. Then exp(i*(a_n + pi)) = exp(i*a_n)*exp(i*pi) = -exp(i*a_n). The sequence {-exp(i*a_n)} converges to -1. Since we have found a sequence which diverges to positive infty for which the statement taken over that sequence does not hold, we have found a contradiction, hence the statement is false.

>>9945717
Meaning that everytime you guys post an argument or counter-posit, it just proves his point because you guys are still analyzing 'his' theory, for whatever reason.

>>9945386
>inf - inf = 0
There are well known examples of pairs of divergent sequences whose difference converges to a number other than 0, or again diverges. By constructing any number system for which "inf - inf" is always zero, you are abandoning the conventional definitions of limits and analysis as a whole. This doesn't mean your logic is wrong - you can work with whatever definitions you want - but by working with definitions that nobody else is using, the statements you are proving have entirely different meanings than what is expected. I can prove 2+2 = π if I just redefine all symbols and operations in a convenient way, but ultimately I am proving nothing interesting and only making my life and others' more difficult.

>>9945719
lmao infinite isn't even a number

>>9945717
This is an argument from real analysis, and I circumvent in\ts premise in extended real analysis. You have written the first n terms of your sequence but those are not the ones which matter for convergence. Since your points are spaced apart by pi, write the final n points as
x_n = inf - n*pi

Considering these final n terms which can be written in the extended analysis but not in the finite analysis, we see that the sequence does converge to the correct result because
inf - x = inf

The hat on infinity is not allowed inside the exponential function so infinity has its normal absorptive property here. Converge is demonstrated, the limit is proven. Also, the proof of the impossibility of the finding the limit are also disproven.

>>9945740
>you are abandoning the conventional definitions of limits and analysis as a whole
State those definitions if they exist, and show how my extension of the additive inverse to the inf symbol via continuation from R to extended R requires that I abandon them.

why dont you just plot it in your graphing calculator and see where it goes at the very big numbers? :)

>>9945823
Your post reveals a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. Again, if you are taking you're own definition of "convergence," you can throw everything I wrote out the window. If you are taking the proper definition (which I stated), which is the one that everyone expects you to use when you talk about convergence in math, what I wrote is right. It doesn't matter if the mathematical definition aligns with your personal feelings about what it should be; it has a common definition in this context, and you aren't using it.

>>9945829
You are either illiterate or not reading my post. I stated my definitions, and showed that any system for which "inf-inf" is one which is inconsistent with analysis as it is right now by explaining that there are well-known examples of divergent sequences whose difference is not zero. Again, if you define infty however you want, ignore everything I said, but understand that if you write "inf - inf = 0" you are misleading people who expect infty to have a very different definition than whatever you decided it should be.

Everything else you've written is besides the point and irrelevant. I'm not sure why it's worth mentioning. You have an apparent inability to directly address the argument I'm making: What you have written is wrong if we take any definition of terms like "convergence" as they typically are given, but if you are using your own terminology, it may be right. Even then, and supposing it's self-consistent, it's unlikely that it's anything remarkable. Otherwise, you would be able to frame it in the conventional terminology and real academics would take you seriously.

>>9945866
You are also not "circumventing analysis" in any way by using extended analysis. Everything that holds in analysis holds in extended analysis, but extended numbers just provide a different toolset. Why don't you read an actual textbook on the subject, rather than applying some clearly faulty understanding of it?

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~bournez/load/TEMP/Lectures%2520on%2520the%2520Hyperreals%2520An%2520Introduction%2520to%2520Nonstandard%2520Analysis.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi2q8XQkPjcAhVHA6wKHbI_CvQQFjADegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw2ZGe1ta7gqdAqREemeiLW2

>>9944702
>why do you want me to answer them for you when you demonstrate no attempt to figure it out?
asking you questions IS AN ATTEMPT TO FIGURE IT OUT

>>9945866
>the proper definition
The proper definition is the one I'm using. When infinity is included as a number via analytic continuation, your convergent subsequence has the form of the first n terms of the totality of the subsequence. The proper definition has to do with the final end terms of the sequence, which have a different form that does demonstrate convergence.

>any system for which "inf-inf" is one which is inconsistent with analysis
you didn't show it, you said it.

>What you have written is wrong if we take any definition of terms like "convergence" as they typically are given
No, the typical definition of convergence regards the last n terms. In the typical analysis the first and final n terms have the same form, but that is not so in the continued analysis which contains the finite analysis as a limit.

>>9945884
>Everything that holds in analysis holds in extended analysis
Wrong and stupid. Extended real analysis was designed to be different than real analysis. For instance, when they say, "Infinity is not a number," or, "Absorptive property of infinity makes operations undefined," what they are saying is, "These things are true in finite analysis," that *DOES NOT* hold in extended real analysis.

>>9945893
no, it's your bullshit.

>>9945823
Why are we not taking inf-n*pi/2?

>>9945866
>Your post reveals a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. Again, if you are taking you're own definition of "convergence," you can throw everything I wrote out the window.
Yes welcome to the threads of Jonathan Tooker. We first tried showing he was wrong with analysis, he didn't believe that so now we're showing his own made-up system is retarded and inconsistent.

>>9945639
So tell us Jon, is it true that

[eqn] \lim_{x\to \infty} (x^3 - x^2) = \lim_{x\to\infty} x^3 - \lim_{x\to\infty} x^2 = \infty - \infty = 0[/eqn]

>>9945191
But I did that. You made an error with letting [math]\Delta z^+ \to 0[/math], even though the imaginary part tends to infinity.

>>9946073
You yourself err

>>9946063
You are hopeless and writing something of no value for no reason other than some strange self-gratification. You are not interested in contributing to the mathematical community, as evident by your demeanor and failure to understand basic concepts. I even linked you a textbook on the subject you claim to be using, but it's clear you did not even glance at the table of contents. If you had, you certainly would have noticed the section on "the transfer principle" and would stop this nonsense about how my one statement is "wrong and stupid" because apparently extended analysis was developed to prove results that may not have the same truth value in analysis.
If you care about contributing to the field, rather than mucking about in your own little grime pool, you will have more respect for the scientific community that has given your paper(s) no value and you will seek to find where you can improve.
I would also like to say, your behavior very much matches that of a schizophrenic. I had a good friend in high school who began suffering from schizophrenia shortly after we graduated, and his life took a very dark turn. Eventually, a family took him in and helped in out, and he got treatment. He now has a family and a daughter, and he's doing very well. He's not wasting time on pointless endeavors and aggravating an Internet community. I highly recommend seeking treatment, for yourself and for us.

>>9946110
The way I see it, [math]\Delta z^+ \to i\infty[/math].

Just skimming through backwards. There is a mistake in the proof.

z = x+iy

but the limit as delta z goes to zero is not the same as delta x goes to zero and delta y goes to infinity.

>>9946141
Yes this is exactly the point I've been raising all along

>>9945697
>I see you stopped harping on this problem after you saw I knew the answer.
the answer is trivial for anyone who got his elementary analysis education. I specifically composed the problem in such a way as to bring out the weakness in your 'method', which still only amounts to naively substituting infinity and hoping for the best. also, you are flip-flopping between 'all limits work like that' and 'of the form ax +b'. so I concluded you are not worth my attention anymore. you have a great lot to learn - or heal - before you can be made understand the problems with what you spew here.

>>9945650
>And if I can say "let sqrt(-1) be a number" and do a valid complex analysis from which the real sector can be extracted, then I can also say "let infinity be a number" and do a valid extended real analysis from which the real sector can be extracted.
One is a field extension, the other is the Alexander one point compactification. They are not the same. That why you should have studied algebra in the university, but you decided it was a waste of time because you already studied algebra in high school.....

>>9945697
>Obviously, it can but since your function is not of form
>y = m x + b
Using that logic you can't compute the limit of cos(x) or e^x because they also aren't linear functions.

>>9945829
>>you are abandoning the conventional definitions of limits and analysis as a whole
>State those definitions if they exist
You are saying that after (allegedly) having a course on calculus.... How illiterate are you?

>>9946063
>>Everything that holds in analysis holds in extended analysis
>Wrong and stupid.
Says the one without a course on algebra....

>Extended real analysis was designed to be different than real analysis.
That's a lie.

>>9946063
>"Absorptive property of infinity makes operations undefined," what they are saying is, "These things are true in finite analysis," that *DOES NOT* hold in extended real analysis.
That's a lie.

>>9946066
>Why are we not taking inf-n*pi/2?
Because then his beautiful stupidity falls apart.

>>9946141
>Just skimming through backwards. There is a mistake in the proof.
FINALLY, another error you are admitting....

>>9945823
>The hat on infinity is not allowed inside the exponential function so infinity has its normal absorptive property here
I never thought of seeing you answering one of my questions regarding hat infinity...
Let's work with that: if it's regular infinity instead of hat infinity what goes inside the exponential, and using the property that it is an absorbing element, you have
[math] e^{i \infty}=e^{i (\infty-pi)}=e^{i \infty} e^{-i \pi}=-e^{i \infty} [/math]
Thus, either [math] e^{i \infty} [/math] is not defined or it's zero. Explain that.

>>9946199
>FINALLY, another error you are admitting....
That's not Jon

For all of those who are taking this paper seriously, and being genuine with trying to show Jon why he is incorrect, it's not going to work. He is exhibiting clear signs of schizophrenia (see >>9944913, >>9944925, >>9944949, >>9944955, >>9945133, >>9945168) and, short of him seeking help and medication for himself, there is no way to show him he is wrong. It's unfortunate, but trying to help him with math is a waste of time.

>>9946398
Every single time we debunk it, he makes up a new rule or adhoc reason why the debunking is not correct, and why his result still holds. He clings to his claims and just makes up the arguments as he goes. If you show an inconsistency or error, he will just change the rules to fit his narrative.

>>9945639
>What's the problem?
your structure is inconsistent if you introduce it.
0 = (infinity - infinity) = (infinity + a - infinity) = (infinity - infinity + a) = (0 + a) = a

well done you have an axiom system that is inconsistent
additionally you STILL have not replied to me how
real = infinity + y' is a correct equation

When I put sin(infinity) in matlab it gives an error so you must be incorrect.

>>9946141
Reading papers backward is stupid, and I assume you are an idiot. If you read it forward, then you would see that y is not a variable which appears in the paper, and you would also, hopefully, not choose to ignore that
Delta y+ goes to inf as Delta y' goes to zero.

Learn to read.

>>9946419
>0 = (infinity - infinity) = (infinity + a - infinity)
You are not allowed to add a number to only one side. You should add number to both side, as per usual, to avoid the contradiction.

>additionally you STILL have not replied to me how
y = mx + b doesn't need to be explained as a correct equation.

>>9946851
>You are not allowed to add a number to only one side. You should add number to both side, as per usual, to avoid the contradiction.
Do we not have [math]\infty + a = \infty[/math]?

>>9946851
>Delta y+ goes to inf
Exactly, so why do you say that [math]\Delta z^+ \to 0[/math]?

>>9946985
>Do we not have [math]\infty + a = \infty[/math]?
Obviously not, that would invalidate the definition that
y+ = inf - y'

and
y+ in (0,inf)

which is an implicit statement that y+ and y' are one-to-one, and that means you cannot do that operation you have done. The hypercomplex number is
y+ = hat inf - y' hat 1

I thought it would be obvious that I wrote the definitions which are the ones to use in the demonstrated analysis. I still think it is obvious, but now I can also add, "Use the hat notation in the hypercomplex number y+ so that you don't forget to do the order of operations like it appears in the paper."

Now, regarding your question:
>Do we not have [math]\infty + a = \infty[/math]?
I have answered the question, "Do we not have infinity in y+?" I said, "No." I can see you are nothing by a bullshitter by the way you only deliver one-liners which never demonstrate your own ability, however, your question did not specify y+. Therefore, I do agree that
inf + a = inf

because we can use the property of the identity to write an extended real number, not a hypercomplex one, as
inf hat 1 + a hat 1 = ( inf +1 ) hat 1 = inf hat 1 = inf

This is a a totally different number than
hat inf + a hat 1 != hat inf + 0 hat 1

Therefore, I hope I have cleared up the issue you are trying obfuscate. You are trying to say, "If the order is like that here then why isn't it like that there?," but you will not acknowledge that some numbers are real, some numbers are extended real numbers, and yet other numbers are hyperreal numbers, and each kind of number has its own way of dealing with infinity.

>>9947097
Please seek professional help.

>>9947150
You should be seeking my help.

>>9947097
>>Do we not have ∞+a=∞?
>Obviously not,
You say that first, but later you say
>Therefore, I do agree that
>inf + a = inf
That's a self-contradiction... Oh, wait... You are going to try to save it using hat 1 and hat infinity...

>because we can use the property of the identity to write an extended real number, not a hypercomplex one, as
>inf hat 1 + a hat 1 = ( inf +1 ) hat 1 = inf hat 1 = inf
>This is a a totally different number than
>hat inf + a hat 1 != hat inf + 0 hat 1
But you have said before (for example, in >>9928666) that infinity times hat 1 is equal to hat infinity. Thus
[math] \hat{\infty} + a \hat{1}=(\infty + a ) \hat{1} [\math]
and both equations should give the same result and infinity +a=infinity should be true regardless of if you are talking of infinity or hat infinity.

>>9947166
Please, you are wasting your time. He is a schizophrenic who needs to seek professional help. You cannot convince him of anything.

>>9947166
>both equations should give the same result
You have not demonstrated this and, to the contrary, I have shown that one equation uses hypercomplex numbers while the other does not.

Your attachment to my statement that
hat inf = inf hat 1

is really something. I ask, "Why does he harp on this?" I don't know why. You'll see that due to the definition
y+ in (0,inf)

that isn't allowed in hat 1 during my derivation, and yet you keep harping on it. I cannot see why. For instance, if you write
y+ = hat inf - y' hat 1 = ( inf - y' ) hat 1 = inf hat 1 = inf

then you have violated
y+ in (0,inf)

and your example is not allowed within the rules of my analysis. Therefore, I cannot understand why you harp on this so much.

Everything you write is totally stupid, and you only have criticisms like, "If I don't follow how you did it then it doesn't work!!!" When I say, "You didn't do it how i did it," then you say, "Oh!!! Now we have to do it how you did it huh? You're just inventing some rule that says I can't ignore the way you defined things?!?!?! Ok, then, good lick with that schizo." You are an idiot and you are not even intelligent to troll me with legitimate minutiae.

>>9947245
>Everything you write is totally stupid, and you only have criticisms like, "If I don't follow how you did it then it doesn't work!!!"
The problem is that you have refused time and time again to give the explicit rules for that, that's why nobody knows the correct order of operations besides you.

>>9947097
>Therefore, I do agree that
>inf + a = inf
wtf so do you agree or not? if not what does inf mean? if this equation does not hold you implicitly define the symbol "inf" as one of the real numbers. if you do then you yield a contradiction as i stated before:

0 = inf - inf and inf = inf + a
->
inf + a = inf + (inf - inf) = inf + 0
->
inf - inf + a = 0
->
a = 0 for any a

>>9947292
The problem is that you have refused time and time again to acknowledge those explicit equations in the paper as the explicit rules you seek, instead claiming, "You can't define it with the equation, you have to define it and then write the equation." I disagree with your claim. All of criticism is like I said: you saying, "If assume some other way of doing things than the one he showed in the paper, then the result he got in the paper is invalid."

>wtf so do you agree or not?
That derivation you have shows why infinity isn't a real number. I agree that infinity is not a real number.

>>9947313
>That derivation you have shows why infinity isn't a real number. I agree that infinity is not a real number.
do you agree that
inf + a = inf?

do you furthermore say that
inf - inf = 0?

>>9947319
Since you have chosen not to specify the framework of analysis in which you pose these questions, I choose to simply refer to my previous comment about how you try to obfuscate things by not acknowledging the distinctness of real, extended real, and hyperreal numbers.

>>9947325
>Since you have chosen not to specify the framework of analysis
dont play games. you started the infinity game.

again:
do you agree that
inf + a = inf?

do you furthermore say that
inf - inf = 0?

>>9947325
>distinctness of real, extended real, and hyperreal numbers.
which definitions are you using for this distinction?
if your own state all of them here.
if someone elses source to the complete definition used.

>>9947337
>which definitions are you using for this distinction?
the ones you can find on wikipedia

>>9947344
>the ones you can find on wikipedia
link them please

>>9947245
>"Why does he harp on this?" I don't know why.
Because that's the only explicit rule you have given us, you have provided no other rule. Thus, that's the only thing we have to work with.

>due to the definition
>y+ in (0,inf)
>that isn't allowed in hat 1 during my derivation, and yet you keep harping on it. I cannot see why. For instance, if you write
>y+ = hat inf - y' hat 1 = ( inf - y' ) hat 1 = inf hat 1 = inf
>then you have violated
>y+ in (0,inf)
That's not a problem with my logic, it's a problem with your ill-defined quantities.

>>9947313
>"You can't define it with the equation, you have to define it and then write the equation." I disagree with your claim.
No, there is no problem in defining something through an equation. The problem is when your definition is not consistent, like infinity times hat 1 is equal to hat infinity, but just for linear functions, when it is inside a cosine or an exponential this is not true.

>>9947313
There is no infinity hat in the paper so I don't know what axioms it obeys

>>9947409
If it doesn't appear in the paper, and I have only suggested it as a way for you to remember to do the order of operations in the way they appear in the paper, then why are you so interested in it?

Jon you still have not addressed this. If I have [math]\Delta z^+ = \Delta x + i \Delta y^+[/math] and [math]\Delta x \to 0[/math] while [math]\Delta y^+ \to \infty[/math], then why do we have [math]\Delta z^+ \to 0[/math]? This is impossible and a contradiction.

It is immediately apparent then how you ended up with your bullshit result. We have on the LHS of equation 22 the limit with [math]\Delta y^+ \to 0[/math] and on the RHS [math]\Delta y^+ \to \infty[/math]. Through all your confusing symbols you've mixed up everything and made an error here.

>>9947382
>you have provided no other rule.
Every numbered equation in the paper is a rule.

>a problem with your ill-defined quantities.
quantity is defined not be infinite
you make it infinite
say, "This is contradictory."

>The problem is when your definition is not consistent
You are mixing your factoids there infidel.

>>9947424
>Every numbered equation in the paper is a rule.
You can't just claim things are true just because you say it

>>9947424
>Every numbered equation in the paper is a rule.
That's not how it works, you schizo. That's why you are a college dropout.

>quantity is defined not be infinite
That's not compatible with infinity times hat 1 equal to hat infinity. If the first one is infinite so it is the second one and vice-versa.

>You are mixing your factoids there infidel.
That's because every statement you make is false.

>>9947418
>If it doesn't appear in the paper, and I have only suggested it as a way for you to remember to do the order of operations in the way they appear in the paper, then why are you so interested in it?
SHUT UP AND GIVE US THE FUCKING RULES.

>>9947438
>SHUT UP AND GIVE US THE FUCKING RULES.
I second this. It's taken long enough Jon, let's end it right here right now.

>>9947419
>This is impossible and a contradiction.
That's I why I didn't write it or use and you shouldn't either.

>We have on the LHS of equation 22 the limit with [math]\Delta y^+ \to 0[/math] and on the RHS [math]\Delta y^+ \to \infty[/math].
Pic related, you are pulling stuff out of your ass.

>>9947441
Tell me where you don't agree:

1. We have [math] z = x + iy^+[/math]
2. We have [math] \Delta z = \Delta x + i \Delta y^+[/math]
3. We have [math]\Delta y^+ \to \infty[/math] and [math]\Delta x \to 0[/math]
4. We have [math] \Delta z \to 0 [/math]
5. For all functions [math] f [/math] on [math]\mathbb{C}[/math] we have

[eqn] f'(z) = \lim_{\Delta z \to i \infty} \frac{ f(z + \Delta z) - f(z) }{ \Delta z}. [/eqn]
6. For all functions [math] f [/math] on [math]\mathbb{C}[/math] we have

[eqn] f'(z) = \lim_{\Delta z \to 0 } \frac{ f(z + \Delta z) - f(z) }{ \Delta z}. [/eqn]

As it stands right now in your paper, all of the above statements are true, however statement 5 and 6 can not be true at the same time.

>>9947438
>>9947439
The rules are those enumerated equations in the paper. Now you have almost 50 rules. I didn't use the hat in the paper so I hardly see how the rules for the hat are relevant.

>>9947441
>>We have on the LHS of equation 22 the limit with Δy+→0 and on the RHS Δy+→∞.
>Pic related, you are pulling stuff out of your ass.
Show equations 20 and 21 also, and watch the problem.

>>9947446
>>>9947439
>The rules are those enumerated equations in the paper. Now you have almost 50 rules. I didn't use the hat in the paper so I hardly see how the rules for the hat are relevant.
SHUT UP AND GIVE US THE FUCKING RULES. EXPLAIN US EXPLICITLY HOW HAT INFINITY WORKS.

>>9947444
>Tell me where you don't agree:
You said said, "We have on the LHS of equation 22 the limit with [math]\Delta y^+ \to 0[/math]." This obviously false, as can be seen in my pic of eq (22).

>>9947444
Also Jon, using your method I can show that the derivative of [math] z \mapsto z^2 [/math] has undefined derivative at 0. Watch this:

[eqn] \frac{d}{dz} z^2 \Big|_{z=0} = \lim_{\Delta y^+ \to \infty, \Delta x\to 0} \frac{ \left( \Delta x + i \Delta y^+ \right)^2 - 0 }{ \Delta x + i \Delta y^+} [/eqn]

Taking the limit, the above becomes

[eqn] \frac{d}{dz} z^2 \Big|_{z=0} = \frac{ - \infty^2}{i \infty} = i \infty. [/eqn].

So in fact [math] 0 = i \infty [/math]. USING YOUR RULES FROM THE PAPER!

>>9947448
>EXPLAIN US EXPLICITLY HOW HAT INFINITY WORKS.
Here is the explicit rule:
If you put the hat on the infinity symbol then it should remind you to do the order of operations like they are in the paper.

>>9947451
No, look at eq (21) in your paper. Here you take the limit with [math]\Delta z \to 0[/math].

>>9947455
Also on that bombshell I think we're done here, because as we see what Jon accidentally has done is mix up \infty with 0. He did this between equation (21) and (22) and this perfectly explains his "result".

>>9947456
>If you put the hat on the infinity symbol then it should remind you to do the order of operations like they are in the paper.
SHUT UP AND GIVE US THE FUCKING RULES FOR THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS.

>>9947458
>what Jon accidentally has done is mix up \infty with 0
>>9947455
>So in fact 0=i∞. USING YOUR RULES FROM THE PAPER!
Take into account also his statements from last week, where he was vehemently defending that you can compute the cosine of hat infinity (of which he had retracted from, creating bigger holes) and you will get also that infinity=1 using this logic >>9928470.

>>9947466
I've ruined my vacation by arguing with this madman

>>9947471
>I've ruined my vacation by arguing with this madman
At first, it was more interesting, seen his mind slowly deteriorating as he was cornering himself. But it has become very repetitive since some weeks ago, since he is only saying "you are not following the rules" while never explicitly stating said rules (of course, because if we knew the rules, all their papers would fall apart).

>>9947473
It's very frustrating as he just makes it all up as he goes. Whenever you show one of the blatant inconsistencies in his methods and rules he goes "NUH UHHHH YOU'RE NOT DOING THE EXACT SET OF EQUATIONS I'M DOING IN THE PAPER".

>>9947348
link them please, Jon

>>9947455
You forgot to use L'Hopital's rule.

>>9947457
I agree.

>>9947461
The rules are such that the order of operations is the one in the paper.

>>9947471
A lot of people have ruined their children's lives in these threads so count yourself lucky

>>9947473
>while never explicitly stating said rules
each equation is the paper is there are a rule. I didn't put them there for decoration.

>>9947479
It's almost like two different sets of equations which say different things are not the same set of equations saying the same things