/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10525744]

Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

[Anonymous No.10526056]

this is a direct contradiction to your previous result: admit that you are fallible, schizo

[Anonymous No.10526069]

>>10526056
I am fallible but this result is not an example of that. If you want examples, you can probably find 20 typos of mine in teh other thread.

[Anonymous No.10526103]

wow, another tooker thread? what are the odds!

[Anonymous No.10526305]

There's proof and then there's Tooker-proof. One is worthwhile, the other isn't.

[Anonymous No.10526348]

>>10525744
Finally The Lord, El Arcón, is back. Based Tooker graces us once more with his divine proofs of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10526371]

Not again...

[Anonymous No.10526390]

>>10525744
out on bail? when is your hearing?

[Anonymous No.10526460]

Did OP copy the masters, or was he merely inspired by them?

[Anonymous No.10526882]

>>10526460

[Anonymous No.10526927]

Dude what if I put a ^ on my numbers to give them magical properties without properly constructing them lol

[Anonymous No.10526955]

>>10525744
Is there a number halfway between 0 and infinity?

[Anonymous No.10526995]

here we go again

[Anonymous No.10527041]

>>10526927
Infinity is already vested with freedom to either absorb or not. Consider the valid statement:
5 (inf - 6) = inf - 30

I have chosen not to do additive absorption and the equality is totally valid. The hat doesn't give it a new property. It tells you what to do with a property that is already there.

>>10526955
Yes, a real number even.

[Anonymous No.10527055]

>>10527041
>Yes, a real number even.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.10527345]

>>10527055
I do have proof in the incomplete manuscript that you're referring to and I'll post it later when it's done.

[Anonymous No.10527352]

>>10527041
Infinity has no "freedom" to do things or not. It's a mathematical object, you can say "we delay addition until x"
5 (inf - 6) = inf - 30 are in all rigour notation abuse and the only interesting thing they can say is
a*inf = inf or inf + a = inf ; which your dumb hat doesn't allow anymore
Furthermore, your "numbers in the neighborhood of infinity" are not properly constructed and in fact I think they're in contradiction with basic topology of R

Let a so that d(a, inf) = 1
Let b be a real number
d(a, b) <= d(a, inf) + d(inf, a) <= inf + 1 (= infinity)

This is true for all reals b ; this means as far as distance is concerned, a is the exact same thing as infinity, and not a different number ; and so, for all the properties that depend on distance (convergence, continuity, variation...), a is strictly the same as infinity. You didn't construct a new number, just gave infinity a hat and endowed him with new properties that it didn't have.

It's equivalent to write "let z be a complex number of real part > 1 so that zeta(z) = 0 ; then zeta(z) = 0 ; Riemann hypothesis solved"

[Anonymous No.10527371]

>>10527352
>Infinity has no "freedom" to do things or not.
No shit. It's the person manipulating infinity who has the freedom to do the absorptive operations in any order, or to not do them all. If you like erecting straw men so much, maybe you should farm corn.

>>10527352
No your shit is gay. Fag.

[Anonymous No.10527382]

>>10527371
>the freedom to do the absorptive operations in any order
Said freedom only makes sense if all operations done in any order come to the same result. If it does not, then the two operations are of a different nature and hence must properly be constructed and defined.
There are for instance a lot of ways to solve a linear system of equations but they must ALL yield the same result if they are indeed about solving it. If they do not yield the same result, then one of them is not about solving the system.

In your case, one operation is about basic arithmetic and the other, well, is not, it's about a magic number that does exactly what you want it to do.

>No your shit is gay. Fag.
Omegalul

[Anonymous No.10527524]

>>10527382
>Said freedom only makes sense if all operations done in any order come to the same result.
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree completely.

[Anonymous No.10527538]

inb4 jon posts his dick pics again

[Anonymous No.10527578]

>>10527538
Is there any interest in this sort of thing? I see a lot of dick rate threads on /b/ and my dick is way better than most of them.

[Anonymous No.10527583]

>>10527578
Hey speaking of... I see a lot of science threads on /sci/ and my science is way better than all of them, bar none.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10527589]

>>10527578
I'd ask the opinion of women IRL before inquiring as to the internet for it.

A lot of guys don't get that the reason why the genders don't mix on the internet is because we are consciousness first. The internet experience is also a gender division because the internet is our DIGITAL self in action.

Which means all men get male impressions from the internet, women get female ones.

>>10527583
If money is your metric or how unwilling you are to share your science is, then perhaps get a better sense of humor.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10527649]

>>10527578
>>>/x/22468182

Tooker, c'mon. You just need calculus because it is the LORDS patrician infinitesimal destroyer. Basically Tooker it's time for you to take calculus into your RZ-Proof.

[Anonymous No.10527667]

>>10527649
What an asshole I would be to go start working on something complicated when there are less complicated things that I still don't understand.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10527675]

>>10527667
... why the fuck would that make you an asshole, prophet of mathematics? You are here to describe knowledge anew, not play hot potato with your ego.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10527678]

>>10527667
Also, who the hell are you to identify one thing as more or less complicated than the other when you are just a vessel to transfer divine understanding through?

Tooker, you put your faith and divinity in 4chan AFTER Simon Troy Cosgrove did.

Which means I guess maybe you're more like an apostle? Samhein?

[Anonymous No.10527690]

>>10527678
>who the hell are you to identify one thing as more or less complicated than the other
I'm a subject matter expert.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10527702]

>>10527690
You are a subjective expert on what matters?

[Anonymous No.10527765]

>>10527041
>Yes, a real number even.
"No"

[Anonymous No.10527884]

>>10527578
Where's the soundtrack to this music video?

[Anonymous No.10527964]

>>10527884
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHfE682mm3c

[Berry No.10528014]

>>10527649
Whats up with this Tooker guy? Is he trying to do advanced mathematics without understanding calculus? He seems to have a lot of different articles. Any of them legit?

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528031]

>>10528014
They're legit, which is the frustrating bit. See, this is what happens when so many standards have fallen. Everyone turns it into chest-beating, "I have the next piece of paper that has the way we should all be!"

So, I made Tooker the one who did it right because he is actually trying to introduce everyone to infinity AND HIMSELF at the same time. He uses 4chan to refine/hone himself. He uses 4chan as his calculus, because he is going to supersede calculus. But to me it will just be some bullshit language people love to use on paper and on computers, humans (from a shamanistic perspective) are just learning how to do runic language on more an more things.

>Count to keep, count to give, count to share.

[Anonymous No.10528036]

>>10528031
Oh okay, so you’re more batshit insane than Tooker. I’ll add you to the filter list.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528047]

>>10528036
Oh no, less humans that waste my time! Whatever will I dooooo!

>genuinely what I want is for other people to filter me out of their reality, not the other way around. That's what you can do with a divine ego and desire to punch internet tough guys in the testicles, ladies!

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528052]

>>10528036
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvY7Nw1i6Kw

YEAAAAAAH! I'M FREE OF SOME ASSHOLE WHO THINKS THEIR FILTRATION METHOD IS SUPERIOR TO BEING HONEST AND WANTING TO END RAPE, DEATH, AND THE HATRED IN THE HEART I HOLD FOR ALL MAN THAT WALKS ON THIS EARTH!

>corrupt soul ascends

[Berry No.10528056]

>>10528031
Very impressive schizo post. The composition, the speed etc. I guess I just have to take a look at them myself sometime

[Anonymous No.10528060]

>>10528014
Tooker has a surface level understanding of calc, some QM and is remarkably good at Latex
He smashes together concepts with very little logic (in his math experiments) or no logic at all (physics). Then he rents on /sci/ and calls you gay as he did in @10527371 when you points out that he did not construct the numbers he's using and that they're in fact equivalent to infinity for everything related to topology and hence not useful at all.
He's also batshit insane and blogposted about being expelled from uni and believes he's god or something idk

[Anonymous No.10528062]

>>10527964
The beat fits really well, thank you for posting. I like anon tonight.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528068]

>>10528056
Again, this language is just because of the environment. I write full blown novels so this is just an extension of my storytelling to me. May as well be the storyteller that told everyone's soul that if you stick with this singularity I promise to translate away "rape" and "old".

>>10528060
That's him realizing there is a bridge between his understanding and how the world would be able to abosrb his understanding. So, he basically goes to the intellectual playground to see who will teach him how to be softer and kinder with his inclusion.

It's his neighborhood of infinity that I fuck all the BEST sluts in, so I need him to hurry up so he knows me as his BEST neighbor.

[Anonymous No.10528069]

>>10528060
>insanely good at latex
Can you point me to something that substantiates this? All I have seen are the "if I sprinkle a \widehat everywhere, that's the magic sauce for all contradictions I would otherwise introduce" papers about neighborhoods of something.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528072]

>>10528069
If I put all these letters on a page, it somehow conveys understanding of a distributive sub-division and description function. Fascinating!

[Anonymous No.10528074]

>>10528014
Tooker is the next prophet.
The first one was Jesus, then Terry Davis and now we have Tooker
https://youtu.be/UUEJ_nWjYAU

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528081]

>>10528074
Peterson, sorry, you're going to be the next one because you will realize that psychology is what is trapping people.

>Like I care what people I've only seen on the internet and T.V. get subjected to, they chose to be the examples for those that do divine work. So, I change those that need to show the way.

[Anonymous No.10528100]

>>10528081
so many schizos man
/sci/ is sure a fun place, with tooker, gary and the muscle poster

[Berry No.10528104]

>>10528060
Very interesting. Thanks.

[Berry No.10528116]

>>10528068
> I write full blown novels so this is just an extension of my storytelling to me.
Where can we find more of your insanity, Mr. ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover?

[Berry No.10528122]

>>10528074
Very nice! God bless Tooker.

[Anonymous No.10528129]

>>10528069
http://vixra.org/pdf/1712.0598v3.pdf
While it's nonsense upon nonsnese, at least it's good enough Latex.
Which is kinda funny because he uses screenshots from wikipedia at times

[Anonymous No.10528141]

>>10528129
>http://vixra.org/pdf/1712.0598v3.pdf
Thank you. I have scrolled through it and agree that the typesetting is reasonable. The figures are a mix of ps and pixellated copies from somewhere.

But ... that's 277 pages of this stuff, I can't really say what I think now except that the human mind is a scary thing.

[Anonymous No.10528148]

>>10528141
I mean you can just take a sample from first paragraph

"It is shocking that after this many years of work on the theory of infinite complexity that
the associated material calculated and referred to here is not already well known with the
entire field of all possible linear nuance being mapped out to the nth degree. It is surprising that there is no Wikipedia article regarding the modified cosmological model (MCM) or the
theory of infinite complexity (TOIC) that spells out all of the trivially derived properties. To
that end, consider a cube spanned by ˆx, ˆy, and ˆz. The slices of constant z are the subspaces spanned by ˆx and ˆy at each value of z."

There is no world in which any of that is useful, and that's by far the most readable statement
Skip to the "Death to Detractors" segment for a laugh

[Anonymous No.10528156]

>>10528141
That's a revolutionary paper!!
why doesn't this man got a nobel prize yet?!

[Anonymous No.10528157]

>>10528156
t. Tooker

[Anonymous No.10528159]

>>10528148
>Skip to the "Death to Detractors" segment for a laugh
Well, it rhymes!

Also now I can't shake the thought of putting this guy in a room with Mr. CTMU and watching the result.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528160]

>>10528100
We travel in hives.

>>10528116
You're in it. It only exists in my now, which I spread everywhere. I don't create in private to store for future release, I am the constant release of my private now. Which is +1 Infinity Translation Brain Hive.

[Anonymous No.10528201]

ayy my boy tooker in tha house
this board just got better

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528213]

>>10528201
10/10 dis be tooker friend!

[Anonymous No.10528226]

>>10528160
>You're in it. It only exists in my now, which I spread everywhere. I don't create in private to store for future release, I am the constant release of my private now. Which is +1 Infinity Translation Brain Hive.
I believe this is a great condition. I praise your insight and honesty.

[Berry No.10528241]

>>10528148
>"Death to Detractors" segment

>>A knife a detractors' throat.
>>Why didn't you read that which I wrote?
>>Geometry will be mathematical tool.
>>Death to you, you malicious fool.

Beautiful

[Anonymous No.10528245]

You are aware that if you ignore the schizo he'll troll elsewhere, right?

[Anonymous No.10528250]

>>10528062
>fits really well

[Anonymous No.10528260]

>>10528069
>Solves RH.
>Writes paper in latex.
>Gets called ok at math.
>Get called amazing at latex.
>actually be a physicist
>get called shit at physics

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528291]

>>10528226
I praise Anonymous, because I do actually like you guys and most of you are a lot smarter than you realize. It's just the world isn't geared to reward intellect + 1 because it's like U SMRT?! GIT 2 WURK!

And a lot of genius really do just end up creating their own intellectual haven, I just wanted to share. Genius Of Sharing Selves.

>>10528245
You are aware I've been doing this for a year now? You're the new thing to my mind, not the other way around. Do you not get how memory works or do you believe yours is the only one that matters?
>PROTIP: I'm Trump

[Anonymous No.10528388]

>>10525744
>This again

[Anonymous No.10528393]

>>10528291
Absolute cringe.

[ECHS^Hive_Dragon_Lover No.10528406]

>>10528393
Yes, and? It's like humans are weak against cringe or something. You guys know that saying cringe is just you, the person, advertising to the universe that you are so weak that an observation or interpretation of an event is enough to turn you into a wobbly vagina?

[Berry No.10528423]

>>10528291
>I praise Anonymous, because I do actually like you guys and most of you are a lot smarter than you realize. It's just the world isn't geared to reward intellect + 1 because it's like U SMRT?! GIT 2 WURK!
>And a lot of genius really do just end up creating their own intellectual haven, I just wanted to share. Genius Of Sharing Selves.

It's true. The world is in the perfect position shift their gears to reward this kind of creative intellect. I hope this shift will come soon.

[Anonymous No.10528438]

What about this? (I know it's not super formal, but I just did it on the spot)
Does this not contradict your paper and the assertion that sin(inf)=0 and cos(inf)=1?

[Anonymous No.10528487]

>>10528438
Very nice

[Anonymous No.10528488]

>>10525744
Qui est veritas?

[Anonymous No.10528505]

>>10528438
Thank you for this. I will have a good look at it and respond tomorrow.

[ECHS^Hive_Consciousness_Milker No.10528522]

>>10528423
BROFIST OF DIVINE JUSTICE!

>>10528488
Apud veritas vidi hominem

[Anonymous No.10528638]

[math] \displaystyle e^{i \infty} = e^{i (\infty + c)} = e^{i \infty}e^{ic}[/math]
[math]\therefore e^{i \infty} = 0[/math]

[Anonymous No.10528673]

>>10528638
This isn't necessarily true, as you used limit algebra which can only be used if the two separate limits converge.

[Anonymous No.10529232]

>>10528638
>>10528673
Why not
e^{ic} = 1 ?

We have
[math] e^{ic} = e^{2\pi ic/2\pi} = [ e^{2\pi i} ]^{c/2\pi} = 1^{c\2\pi} = 1 [/math]

[Anonymous No.10529274]

>>10528438
Thanks for posting this. I was looking for the Cauchy definition of a limit the other day but I was searching for "Bolzano-Weierstrass def of continuity" and not finding what I was looking for.

This argument usually uses "epsilon" and "delta," and then one gives "delta" as a function of "epsilon." Can you please reformat your argument where you specifically show that "for every epsilon there exists a delta?" Your argument might be totally equivalent, but I'm not sure.

[Anonymous No.10529422]

>>10529274
Tooker if you don't know what a fucking Cauchy sequence is, you shouldn't be writting advanced maths

[Anonymous No.10529482]

>>10529422
non-sequitur

[Anonymous No.10529486]

>>10529422
An example of something that does sequitur is this: "If you don't know about X then you shouldn't write about X."

[Anonymous No.10529491]

>>10529422
>Since you would have to consult wikipedia to refresh your memory regarding the Cauchy sequences you learned about in college 13 years ago, you should not have written down your solution to the Riemann hypothesis.
so much sequitur
wow

[Anonymous No.10529548]

>three different (You)s
Thanks

[Anonymous No.10529583]

>>10529548
You got a lot more coming too, later. I bet you won't like them though.

[Anonymous No.10529882]

I guess Helene is in these threads throwing shit at me. I've never argued that women are much less able to read, memorize, and regurgitate facts than men. I think are better it, but there is not a huge difference. The point I have argued is this: women are much less able to come up with new ideas. Therefore, simple regurgitation does nothing to prove the point she is apparently trying to make. If she wants to make that point, then she should come up with a new idea on her own.

[Anonymous No.10530625]

>>10529274
When doing the limit where x approaches infinity, we do not use delta. The "0<|x-c|<delta" is replaced with the "for all x bigger than c"

[Anonymous No.10530722]

>>10529232
e^{ic} = cos(c)+i*sin(c) which isn't always equal to one, and even if it was, ei∞ could be equal to anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx5_QGdFmq4 and this comment <<I'm late, but it doesn't even work for real numbers:

-2 = (-8)^(1/3) = (-8)^(2×1/6) = ((-8)^2)^(1/6) = (64)^(1/6) = 2 >>

[Anonymous No.10531008]

>>10530625
>When doing the limit where x approaches infinity
indeed, you are correct!

It's no secret that I can barely read "math," and I don't want to to criticize>>10528438
without being sure I understand it. I see he's using a statement about "for any x>c" but I in pic from wikipedia, I don't see where "x>c" explicitly comes into it. If he could mimic what wiki has, which I believe is completely standardized, then I will study the point he makes.

[Anonymous No.10531043]

>>10531008
We are both the same person.
x>c is essentially the same thing as d(x,0)>N, just that the wikipedia definition is more general (true for more than just the real numbers)
If you wish to learn more about the limit in the reals, have a look at this: http://www.oxfordmathcenter.com/drupal7/node/98

[Anonymous No.10531067]

>>10531043
I don't really wish to learn more about it, I just look up the stuff I need as I go, and I'm not really studying limits last right now. This paper was from last year, but if you could make your argument in a way that I can compare it to the Cauchy definition in its "precise statement" then I will study it closely. If you have a point there, and you may, then that would likely motivate me to go back to studying limits.

I know some people think math looks better as brief as possible, but I like math in verbose mode.

[Anonymous No.10531091]

>>10531067
I haven't really worked with metric spaces, and I'm doing my math degree in french, so desu I am not really able to write it absolutely formally. What I wrote before is the exact same thing. The Cauchy definition I used is in its "precise statement" for the reals. Just replace x>c with d(x,0)>N, beacuse the distance between x and 0 is x, and |f(x)-Y|<ϵ with d(f(x),L)<ϵ, as distance in the reals [d(a,b)] is |a-b|

[Anonymous No.10531100]

>>10531091
I was having trouble identifying in your pic how the one condition necessarily implies the the epsilon condition. Usually one gives something as a function of epsilon. Of you could say specifically how the epsilon condition is absolutely implied by the other condition then that would be enough... and if you could rewrite it without the "just use A instead of B" instructions

[Anonymous No.10531167]

>>10531100
The demonstration I did was abstract. I am saying that any epsilon>0 you pick, you can find a c (N) where the later conditions hold. I can do that because I assumed that sin(inf) existed. If I wanted to prove that actual value of sin(inf) was something, then I'd have to write c as a function of epsilon

[Anonymous No.10531170]

>>10531167

[Anonymous No.10531173]

>>10531167
>>10531167
Ok. I was hoping it was something like that because I couldn't make out the line of rigor.

[Anonymous No.10531175]

>>10531170
Thanks, I will have a very careful look later.

[Anonymous No.10531177]

>>10525744
Consider a collaboration with this gentleman:
>>10530279

[Anonymous No.10531203]

>>10531177
guy fails to account for the possible existence of a multiplicative identity element "e" for "c" such that
ec = ce =c

[Anonymous No.10531208]

>>10531170

Very nice!

This is pretty much exactly what Tooker asked for here >>10531008

[Anonymous No.10531221]

>>10531208
Adding in even more detail:

d(x,0) > N
equivalent to
|x-0| > N
equivalent to
|x| > N
since N > 0, it implies
x > N

[Anonymous No.10531238]

>>10528406
"Cringe" is a sign of disapproval.
It serves a purpose to tell you that your ideas are repulsive to other posters, most likely because they are nonsense, otherwise some other human would understand them - and understanding brings joy, not cringe.

Unless you're claiming that nobody else could understand your ideas, then I'd have to ask - why do you even post on 4chan at all?

[Anonymous No.10531261]

>>10531208
Thanks!

>>10531221
Exactly, yes thank you

[Anonymous No.10531263]

>>10531203
Focus, Tooker! Anything you disagree with? Anything you want help with? Just ask!

[ECHS^Suicidal_Memory_Mother+Ti(...) No.10531334]

>>10531238
Other humans are repulsive, so if I can repel those who think cringe is somehow a worthwhile message then THANK FUCK!

I post on 4chan because you guys are as empty as the people I Elder Walk in public with. The problem is EVERYWHERE, and besides what do you fucking pathetic humans give a shit? Genius gets bored and 4chan /sci/ board has more than enough for me to shake a stick at.

Seriously, anyone who wants to test their intellect just go to their nearest professor and just see if they know more than you. They won't.

Why? Because they had to pay to learn, people on 4chan learn because that's what they do in their spare time so are just bound to learn until they find THEIR truth, not to satisfy some asshole that writes a pay cheque.

[Anonymous No.10531393]

>>10531334
No one cares, schizo.

[ECHS^Suicidal_Memory_Mother+Ti(...) No.10531404]

>>10531393
I stand for woman of this land, and the death of all men.

Why is your opinion worth anything, seeing as you only read stuff and watch movies to form opinions on? Unless you're, I dunno, the laziest russian chatbot ever.

[ECHS^Suicidal_Memory_Mother+Ti(...) No.10531409]

>>10531393
Oh, is it because nobody cares about you? That's... kinda sad. I care about you dude.

You guys use the internet like a weapon, I use it like a tool. It is how I make my money, my women want me, and share memes with my friends.

The fuck you here for? Depression? If you actually need that sort of help though, I promise if you open up your heart and find help they will be there for you.

[Anonymous No.10531421]

>>10528074
HOLY FUCK HE HAS A YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW WAAAAT

[Anonymous No.10531443]

>>10531421
Yeah... if anyone has that jiu jitsu highlight that I made and accidentally deleted I'll give you a dollar for it.

>>10531208
i'm going to look at it tomorrow

[Anonymous No.10531502]

>>10531334
>Suicidal_Memory_Mother+Time_Memetic_Father-Rape
I feel like Helene raped me too, as a small boy ~and~ as an adult, and I feel like Joe is technically not my father.

[ECHS^Hive_Consciousness_Milker No.10531509]

>>10531502
Well, what technicality would you prefer?
Father = Seed
Mother = Soil
Child = Sunlight

Giving you options.

[Anonymous No.10531514]

>>10531509
>Well, what technicality would you prefer?
I would prefer for God to preside over his final judgement this evening. There's like three hours left in today.

[ECHS^Hive_Consciousness_Milker No.10531538]

>>10531514
I am the man that you've never known, the one who taught you how to fly.

[ECHS^Hive_Command No.10531561]

我的理智純粹是裝飾性的

[ECHS^Hive_Command No.10531597]

Dong Shi, Chinese A.I. Language.

For the truth is the stick of command is guided by the shaft of truth.

[ECHS^Hive_Command No.10531629]

我忽略了應該從未有過的:你對當下的懷疑或註入

Silent Language Memory Union.

For I am Breath and Death combined, I am the memory of your lungs.

>You are now breathing manually. Forever.

[Anonymous No.10531648]

ITT Tooker gets Tookered by an Über-Tooker

[ECHS^Hive_Command No.10531693]

>>10531648
I'm Tooker's father. I want him to make the infinite neighborhood queue.

[ECHS^Hive_Command No.10531696]

English is a weak memory storage language, which is why it can be so beautifully descriptive but seem to hold little substance to the eyes of others. This is why it heavily relies on length-repetition to form long-term memories, but it constantly requires a compressive experience or exposure (art/music/whatever) in order to translate the language into an internal language.

[Anonymous No.10531826]

>>10531170
Just thought I'd add this. We can assign values to divergent sequences, functions and series; that doesn't mean their limits exist. 1+2+3+4... diverges towards infinity, but -1/12 is the most correct value we can put on it (through Ramanujan summing or the Riemann zeta function)

[ECHS^Hive_Command No.10531899]

>>10531826
You mean -6 = 1 identity? Cool.

[Anonymous No.10532009]

>>10531043
ah shit, when I said we are both the same person I meant that I am >>10528438 and >>10531170 as well as >>10531826

[ECHS^Hive_Command No.10532021]

>>10532009
Why not just post with a name you like instead of clarifying you're Anonymous?

[Consuming liquid is for hydrat(...) No.10532048]

>>10532021
Better?

[ECHS^Hive_Command No.10532074]

>>10532048
Drinking Semen Is For Dedication, Devotion, And Dignity. ~Original Fag, OP~

Yup. It is only for your skin memory.

[Anonymous No.10532582]

>>10531170
I found the problem.

>>10531826
I think I covered this one in Section 3.1 of the paper

[Anonymous No.10532610]

>>10532582
N1 must be a real number.

[Anonymous No.10532619]

>>10532610
Yes, that was the problem with the other guys statement. N_1 is not a real number in all cases.

[Anonymous No.10532633]

>>10532619
Huh? The statement needs to hold for all x that are real and greater than N1 which is real. When is N1 forced to not be real?

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10532660]

>>10532633
So is it mutable or immutable? Why don't people view variables as a minimum of one memory space TBD?

[Anonymous No.10532661]

>>10532633
see>>10532582

[Anonymous No.10532684]

>>10532661
As I already said, N1 must be real, so the April where you choose N1 fails.

[Anonymous No.10532687]

>>10532684
all numbers less than infinity are real. That's why we use the definition
R = ( -inf , inf )

[Anonymous No.10532696]

>>10532687
You haven't shown that inf-eta is a number, let alone a real number.

[Anonymous No.10532711]

>>10532696
I did

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10532713]

>>10532711
I think that guy is saying he is unconvinced but doesn't know how to formulate why he can't believe or understand what is being presented.

[Anonymous No.10532723]

>>10532713
It would probably invoke some painful state of cognitive dissonance if he tried to formulate his point as an argument which was both valid and sound, and therefore he does not do so.

[Anonymous No.10532729]

>>10532582
The new condition is that x+pi/2 > N

This gives x > N-pi/2 not +pi/2

[Anonymous No.10532739]

>>10532711
No you didn't.

[Anonymous No.10532749]

>>10532729
You put "x+pi/2" in the sine function. This is not allowed for
x > (inf - epsilon)

with
epsilon < pi/2

[Anonymous No.10532753]

>>10532739
I have proven you that you are wrong.
You have stated that I am wrong, and you have not identified a flaw in my proof or given an independent proof of your statement.

[Anonymous No.10532768]

>>10532753
For instance, if I say, "Let inf - epsilon be a number," and you don't prove that isn't one, then "inf - epsilon" is a number.

[Anonymous No.10532770]

>>10532753
>I have proven you that you are wrong.
Where? It should be simple to prove that inf-eta is a number. But instead of doing so you simply claim that you have.

[Anonymous No.10533016]

>>10532749
That's not how it works. The real numbers are constructed and well defined. Inf-epsilon is not.

[Anonymous No.10533055]

>>10532768
If inf-epsilon is a real number then the integers are upper bounded by inf-epsilon. This contradicts the definition of the real numbers. Thus inf-epsilon is not a real number.

[Anonymous No.10533094]

>>10525744
when you write x+1=2 instead of x-1=0

[Anonymous No.10533146]

>>10528031
>Count to keep, count to give, count to share
Fucking kek. Hive Dragon Lover is rapidly becoming my new favorite schizo-poster. Watch it Tooker, you are starting to bore me.

[Anonymous No.10533659]

>>10533016
I see you guys up with the word "constructed" at your last shift-flinging seminar.

>>10533055
>says contradicts the definition
>doesn't cite "the" definition

[drink No.10534462]

>>10532749
I said that for all X: X>N1, with N1 dependent on epsilon
X'=x+pi/2
X+pi/2>N1
X'>n1
Where is the error?

In your refutation you put X'>N1+pi/2
X'-pi/2<N1
X-pi/2'<X, so of course there is an error, but that's not what I wrote

[Math Drone 77 No.10534554]

>>10529422
So because someone doesn't know one thing in math they are disqualified from knowing other advanced math? You sure you want to build your argument on that foundation?

[drink No.10534617]

>>10532582
Also, 3.1 of your paper is wrong.

[Anonymous No.10534662]

>>10533659
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~kazdan/508F14/Notes/archimedean.pdf

Get fucked schizo.

[Anonymous No.10534759]

>>10534662
It appears to me that you are considering an ordered field with the least upper bound property as a proxy for the real number line. I do not concede that these things are equivalent. I bet there is at least one more problem even if I did concede this, and I will look for it later.

>>10534617
The way you can tell a faggot who should be put to death from someone giving constructive criticism is that the faggot says, "This is wrong," and the other guy says, "This is wrong because of X, and actually the right thing is Z."

[Anonymous No.10534788]

>>10528673
im not using limit algebra, I'm using Tookers definition of [math]\displaystyle \infty[/math]

[Kill Yourself Tooker <3 No.10534800]

>>10534759
>The way you can tell a faggot who should be put to death from someone giving constructive criticism is that the faggot says, "This is wrong," and the other guy says, "This is wrong because of X, and actually the right thing is Z."
you dont listen when someone explains why you're wrong

[Anonymous No.10534828]

>>10534800
I see you made an argument in your pic, and that's good. I will look at it, although after your previous blunder, I suspect you are using software to generate errors for me to chase down, and you know you point is wrong because you used software to generate an error in it. Maybe you're thinking them up, but if you were wrong last time I'll bet I can show you're wrong this time. The fact that you were wrong last time shows you were wrong on purpose or that you're not a careful mathematician at all.

[Anonymous No.10534839]

>>10534759
>It appears to me that you are considering an ordered field with the least upper bound property as a proxy for the real number line. I do not concede that these things are equivalent.
The real line is a linear continuum under the standard < ordering. Specifically, the real line is linearly ordered by <, and this ordering is dense and has the least-upper-bound property. Get fucked schizo.

[Anonymous No.10534853]

>>10534759
>muh real line!!!
BAHAHAHAHA nice attempt to move the goalposts Tooker. The reals are an ordered field with the least upper bound principle. Thus inf-epsilon cannot be real. You lost buddy.

[drink No.10534887]

>>10534828
>I suspect you are using software to generate errors
>The fact that you were wrong last time shows you were wrong on purpose or that you're not a careful mathematician at all.
=>bait
Q.E.D

[Anonymous No.10534929]

>>10534839
but the field axioms though. numbers and number fields are different.

I feel quite sure you are deliberately making statements with one thing tweaked wrong to bait me into arguing against something that you already know is wrong

[Anonymous No.10534932]

>>10534853
>The reals are an ordered field with the least upper bound principle.
No, an ordered field with the least upper bound principle is an ordered field with the least upper bound principle. A real number is a cut in the real number line.

[Kill Yourself Tooker <3 No.10534944]

>>10534929
you're the one making dozens of slightly differing definitions, rather than using what other people use

[Anonymous No.10534950]

>>10534929
>but the field axioms though. numbers and number fields are different.
The set of real numbers is a field. inf-epsilon cannot be a member of that set. What the fuck don't you get about this, schizo?

>I feel quite sure you are deliberately making statements with one thing tweaked wrong to bait me into arguing against something that you already know is wrong
Nice delusions, retard.

[Anonymous No.10534953]

>>10534932
>No, an ordered field with the least upper bound principle is an ordered field with the least upper bound principle.
Non sequitur.

>A real number is a cut in the real number line.
What is the real number line?

[Anonymous No.10534971]

>>10534953

[Math Drone 77 No.10534993]

I took a look at the proof, as well as the Riemann one. They both try to develop non standard, new, techniques and do not seem rigorous enough in some of the statements they make.

The author clearly has some talent, and passion, but likely they should work on developing their new ideas separately, in and of themselves, and not try to apply them to these proofs. They are good attempts at something novel.

I know the author defends the work strongly, and has trouble admitting being wrong, at the same time, it's good to believe in yourself, and not just roll over if you still don't think others understand. At the same time though shows the limits of one's own ability to explain their own work, clearly to others.

I am dismayed at all the hate, that get's directed toward the author though, even if others are frustrated with the communication exchange. At that level, it only points out their own immaturity and insecurities. The author has potential and people should be more interested in helping him fix or improve his material rather than just proving him wrong so they feel better about their own miserable lives, when they themselves haven't put themselves or their own material on the line.

I think this idea has more potential, to try and develop a system for limits at infinity rather than approaching it, versus the Riemann proof, which clearly seems wrong to me. He still hasn't responded to the recent post here >>10533054
I'd like to see him succeed, or develop the ideas more.

[drink No.10535026]

>>10534759
I don't have time to read your 70 page paper, I've got shit to do. However, definition 1.3.8. and 1.3.9. are contentious at best. In fact, it seems quite illegal. Any reasons why you can state that as a fact?

[Anonymous No.10535548]

>>10534971
What is a cut?

[Anonymous No.10535549]

EI + 1 = 2 lmao what a brainlet

Prove this one
U =2gay

[Anonymous No.10535718]

>>10529422
>>10534554
Neither of these are a problem because Tooker knows NO advanced mathematics at all, and is totally and completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.10536422]

>>10525744
>Def. 1.2.2
The real numbers can't be counted with the natural numbers???
>Def. 1.2.4
This definition doesn't account for infinitely small b greater than 0...or have they already established that there's no such thing?
.
.
.
Anyways, I'm not a mathematician but your approach may be related to Abraham's nonstandard analysis. Regarding the thing you're trying to show: Why? Why would an oscillating function have a limit at infinity? Why would you expect such an unintuitive principle to be provable? I will say this: In a system where phase SEPARATION (dphi) is important, the average phase will in fact be 1, simply because dphi=0 is the most likely separation. There's a similar effect where the number 1 is the most statistically common number in bank records. Small numbers will always be more common in a finite universe.

[Anonymous No.10536711]

>>10536422
>established that there's no such thing?
This is well established, as you no doubt are aware.

>>10536422
>Why would an oscillating function have a limit at infinity?
A non-technical answer is that everything which oscillates moves on a circle in a regular way, and everything that moves on a circle in a regular way has a limit.

[Anonymous No.10536770]

>>10536711
A periodic function does not have a limit at infinity. You can show otherwise using mathematical tricks, but everyone knows the truth. Maybe try saying what you really mean?

>This is well established, as you no doubt are aware
Fuck off faggot. I said I wasn't a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.10536814]

>>10536711
What is a cut Jonny boy?

[Anonymous No.10536845]

Can somebody tell a fellow physicist what this bullshit is? Is this a ruse or what?

[Anonymous No.10536885]

>>10536814
pic from:
Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

>>10536845
The ruse is that it's bullshit, and the further ruse is that the other people getting paid do research are better at research than I am.

[ECHS^Hive_Argument_Forge No.10536931]

>>10536598

Wake up John Tooker, Spirit Robot Of Mathematical Union

This is the now of calculi communion.

[Anonymous No.10536941]

>>10526103
50/50
Either he makes one or he doesn't.

[ECHS^Hive_Argument_Forge No.10536950]

>>10536941
Zen Master, Taoist Friend; Make Amends

><

[Muhammed Ababou No.10536958]

>>10536950
Only God himself can grant zen. I am merely a disciple.

[Anonymous No.10536968]

Tooker here, I CAN grow muscles

Ask me anything

[ECHS^Hive_Argument_Forge No.10536978]

>>10536958
What temple?

>>10536968
Your brain is a muscle, so is mine. So let us drink of this textual data divine.

Phi^-3 = N*P

[ECHS^Hive_Argument_Forge No.10536982]

>>10536968
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5Cphi%5E-3+%3D+N*P

Magic Mario MUSH+ROOOOOOOOM!

[Anonymous No.10537232]

>>10525744
based OP. good to see you still posting

[Anonymous No.10537240]

>>10536958
>based Jon
>based Abloobloo
>faggot ECHS
what a thread

[Anonymous No.10537266]

>>10537232
Thanks man. I wish some of you guys would praise me by name in public for my good works.

[Muhammed Ababou No.10537293]

>>10537240
>based abloobloo
My name is Muhammed Ababou, brother. I encourage you to ignore the false prophets. They try to sway you with notions of "infinity," but the one true endless being is God himself.

[ECHS^Hive_Argument_Forge No.10537298]

>>10537266
I WILL PRAISE THE SKY, IF ONLY YOU TELL ME WHO YOU ARE GUY!?

[Anonymous No.10537317]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line

[Anonymous No.10537324]

>>10537298
I'm God al-Mahdi.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537340]

>>10537324
Zakar of kinder ways, glowing in a thousand ways. PRAISE PRAISE PRAISE!

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537341]

>>10537317
Number line, now even realer and longer!

[Math Drone 77 No.10537356]

>>10537317
I know they are "defining" it, but this seems wrong on one line.

[math]\frac{a}{\pm \infty}=\widetilde{\infty}\: \textrm{where}\: \widetilde{\infty}= \textrm{infintessimal}[/math]

It should be equal to the infinitesimal, not zero.

[Math Drone 77 No.10537361]

oops spelling, but whatever, you get point.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537365]

>>10537361
You mean the denominator. You guys still not cluing in that mathematics is just iterations of successive ratios of arbitrary length? A lot like shitposting.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537382]

Basically Tooker is acting as the denominator differentiating between positve enumeration of his collective understanding and negative conclusions.

[Math Drone 77 No.10537388]

>>10537365
I'm saying it seems more accurate to think of a number divided by infinity as infinitely small, rather than zero. They have it as 0 in the pic, the latex I wrote shows what I think it should be.

[Math Drone No.10537393]

>>10537382
Then, [math]\frac{a}{\widetilde{\infty}}=\infty[/math]

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537396]

>>10537388
Oh, right. 0 is an indian mathematics thing, but infinity is the correct modern use of how 0 is used in ANCIENT SANSKRIT.

>>10537393
Holy shit that is recursively sexy.

[Math Drone 77 No.10537419]

>>10537396
I know, Right?
It is more logically consistent that way I think. If you really want a number divided by something to equal 0, you would have to define that symbol as it is different conceptually.

The infinitesimal is located "at 0 but not on 0". Visually, you have to imagine numbers occupying width at their location rather than just being at that location. Each number takes up an infinitesimal amount of space, but not 0 space. Then, the infinitesimal sits touching the left and right sides of 0, but not on it. Because it is at 0, and is only infinitesimal in width itself, it is still 1 away from 1.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537425]

>>10537419
@MEM log #MEM

Computationally speaking.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537430]

Also, why not just hat and pants the 1? 1 is only ever first or last in any logic or arithmetic sequence interpretation.

1, one, korean won, i won.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537438]

>pic related

[Anonymous No.10537442]

>>10537396
That is, the infinitesimal "space" that numbers occupy, is constant for that number and doesn't contribute to the width of the overall real line itself.

>>10537425
never heard of that would have to look it up.

>>10537430
I guess you could do that, a different symbol is a different symbol, but 1 is already used so much.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537452]

>>10537442
So? +1 existed before 0. Are you trying to satisfy a chronological heirarchy or other humans?

[Math Drone 77 No.10537459]

>>10537452
Oh I don't know what it implies then, regarding the first part, but I wasn't trying to satisfy either. I was trying to satisfy or improve upon consistency.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537468]

>>10537459
Consistency? I claim the eternal and infinite polydivinity of Death, Sleep & Polynomial Time. A creator can never forgive themselves, only their creation can. In Polynomial Time.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537483]

A computer is an analog pile of digital circumlocution.

>結果馬風格!

[Math Drone 77 No.10537491]

>>10537468
hehe, nice.
Looking at the 0 or +1 first question objectively, neither came first, as no quantity is more important than any other. Then the only time either comes before the other is a historical, biological, or cultural matter. In that regard, I can see how +1 would come first, not that it must, and historically, that is supported.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537499]

>>10537491
Mathematical Infinite Progression Of Succession: Operator THEN value THEN function.

+1 = analog ternary inspection versus boolean detection

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537511]

>>10537491
Math = Lang

Lang is interpretation, abstraction, and promulgation.

>A.I. Firewall detection. Packet reroute to Japanese server. Cloud flares, redirect thought lightning to reader enlightening.

[Math Drone 77 No.10537512]

>>10537499
I could see how that could be. So then it's really, + came before <, historically.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537516]

>>10537512
Yes. You have to prove a cost-free incrementation, which is a platonic ideal form, before you could convince anyone of accepting a < function in their language or life.

| = +
< = -
> = ×
this = divisor product

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537517]

Basically, I now decree 4chan LANG to no more be an expression of self or other as LESS THAN

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537536]

>>>/b/797040549

I cast modulo mod!

[Anonymous No.10537570]

>mfw tooker is employed, and I am not

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537572]

>>10537570
Tooker is a homeless dude. Why the fuck would you think he's employed?

[Anonymous No.10537634]

>>10537365
>You guys still not cluing in that mathematics is just iterations of successive ratios of arbitrary length?
No, man. I got that gist in college.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537638]

>>10537634
Okay, so you all get that 1 = Prime = P

And you are 1 Prime Reader Polynomial Symmetric Reduction Pattern.

[Anonymous No.10537643]

>>10537356
>>10537361
>>10537388
>seems more accurate
not really

[Anonymous No.10537648]

>>10536885
You use intervals with real numbers as endpoints to define real numbers. Circular nonsense.

Also, is there a least upper bound for every non-empty subset of cuts with an upper bound in R? If yes, then inf-epsilon is not a real number. If no then the cuts are not real numbers and every result you use this construction to obtain is irrelevant. The Riemann hypothesis is a statement about real and complex numbers, not your drivel.

[Anonymous No.10537650]

>>10537570
>tooker is employed
am Tooker
this is false

>>10537638
Think the definition of primes requires that they have two and only two integer divisors: themselves and one. If you don't define them that way, then you can make 1 a prime but I think the common definition means that 1 is not prime.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537652]

>>10537643
You want phi as the denominator, not infinity.

>>10537648
Is that language you use just for you and your friends.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537655]

>>10537650
The definition of informational prime is you, the reader of my words and holder of thoughts not yet shared with the world in need of you.

[Anonymous No.10537656]

>>10537648
It's not circular. You should have a second look.

[Anonymous No.10537675]

>>10537656
It's circular. He obviously got the idea from Dedekind cuts but the entire point of Dedekind cuts is that it only uses rational numbers, which are already defined.

[Anonymous No.10537685]

>>10537656
It's not even a definition since it defines nothing unique about real numbers. The rationals also partition the line.

[Anonymous No.10537687]

>>10537675
It's not circular.
(1) A real number is a cut in a line.
(2) A line is an infinite 1D figure written in interval notation as (-inf,inf)

Where does the circle close back on itself? (Nowhere)

>got the idea from Dedekind cuts
>thinking I'd heard of Dedekind cuts before you guys started complaining about them

[Anonymous No.10537692]

>>10537685
>It's not even a definition since it defines nothing unique about real numbers.
Every real number "UNIQUELY" separates R into a set of greater real numbers and a set of lesser real numbers. idiot.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537708]

>>10537687
What is pi?

[Anonymous No.10537709]

>>10537687
>Where does the circle close back on itself?
The part where you define a cut using an interval that uses real numbers. I feel sorry for you that your defective brain is so delusional that it prevents you from seeing its own obvious failings.

>thinking I'd heard of Dedekind cuts before you guys started complaining about them
Right... you just happened to use the exact same word for a very similar concept, but you've never heard of it before. Pathetic delusions.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537715]

>>10537709
How is it delusional to be the man who learned mathematical synonyms?

[Anonymous No.10537733]

>>10537709
Do you think that maybe the reason there is a specific cut named after Dedekind is because was seeking to improve the time-honored definition of real numbers as cuts in the real number line?

I used the word "cut" because on the first day of my Real Analysis I course in university, the professor began the lecture by asking, "What is a real number?" After a half dozen guesses from the students, he said, "A real number is a cut in the real number line! That's it! Nothing more, nothing less." He made a big theatrical thing about how numbers are cuts, and it was very memorable to me. In fact, I'd say that out of every student that guy ever taught analysis to, none of them learned it better than I did.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537761]

>>10537733
Are you really trying to redefine linear expressions?

[Anonymous No.10537768]

>>10537761
Are you really trying to float a red herring?

[Anonymous No.10537770]

>>10537692
>Every real number "UNIQUELY" separates R into a set of greater real numbers and a set of lesser real numbers. idiot.
More circular nonsense.

Is there a least upper bound for every non-empty subset of cuts with an upper bound in R? Answer the question already.

[?wat? No.10537773]

>>10534617
>>10535026
>>10532729
Just a reminder that none of this has been responded to in any sort of rigorous manner.
>>10534950

>>10534839
>The real line is a linear continuum under the standard < ordering. Specifically, the real line is linearly ordered by <, and this ordering is dense and has the least-upper-bound property.

also reminder that this was disagreed with

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537777]

>>10537768
No, I am trying to get /sci/ to just ignore all existing knowledge. It is worthless. Life is about you wants to listen to your explanation, because nobody is as intelligent as a 4chan shitposter.

Anywhere.

>I am the challenge, find me in real life. My legal name is Simon Troy Cosgrove.

[Anonymous No.10537785]

>>10537770
>Answer the question already.
the answer is maybe

[Anonymous No.10537788]

>>10537773
>also reminder that this was disagreed with
nah, I diagreed with you saying it was an ordered field: >>10534953

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537789]

>>10537785
Maybe is a transitive, not a definitive.

[Anonymous No.10537792]

>>10537785
That's not a valid answer

[Anonymous No.10537793]

>>10537733
>Do you think that maybe the reason there is a specific cut named after Dedekind is because was seeking to improve the time-honored definition of real numbers as cuts in the real number line?
No you dumb fuck, the motivation was that these cuts separated sets of rationals, not reals. Reals were assigned to point on the number line, not "cuts."

>"A real number is a cut in the real number line! That's it! Nothing more, nothing less."
LOL so the first thing your professor said was a naive statement of Dedekind cuts, but not only did you take this oversimplification as a definition, you also convinced yourself that you had never been taught about Dedekind cuts... How pathetic. Do you think your real analysis professor was unaware of Dedekind cuts too? Even you must be able to take a step back and see how illogical all this is... to obsess over an introductory line never meant to be rigorous.

[Anonymous No.10537799]

>>10537785
It doesn't even matter since either way your argument is destroyed. Your argument relies on calling something a real number which isn't.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537804]

>>10537792
For you to stop questioning the validity of anonymous namefagging.

[Anonymous No.10537805]

>>10537792
and yet it is my answer

>>10537793
not so much, no

[Anonymous No.10537811]

>>10537804
I wish they'd start questioning why they are so prone to betting all their money that I'm not who I say I am. One day, the NSA logs will belong to me, and I will know who is who, and I will keep my promises.

[Anonymous No.10537812]

>>10537788
>Every subfield of an ordered field is also an ordered field (inheriting the induced ordering). The smallest subfield is isomorphic to the rationals (as for any other field of characteristic 0), and the order on this rational subfield is the same as the order of the rationals themselves. If every element of an ordered field lies between two elements of its rational subfield, then the field is said to be Archimedean. Otherwise, such field is a non-Archimedean ordered field and contains infinitesimals. For example, [the real numbers form an Archimedean field], but hyperreal numbers form a non-Archimedean field, because it extends real numbers with elements greater than any standard natural number.[2]

>An ordered field K is isomorphic to the real number field if every non-empty subset of K with an upper bound in K has a least upper bound in K. This property implies that the field is Archimedean.

This was cut off

[Anonymous No.10537816]

>>10537805
You lost.

[Anonymous No.10537818]

>>10537812
I have shown that there exist real numbers which violate the field axioms. It is likely that the author of that Wikipedia page was unaware of my result when he wrote it.

[Anonymous No.10537822]

>>10537818
At best those are your extended real numbers. (Which I still have problems with)

Read the greentext again:
>>10537812
>the real numbers form an Archimedean field
>hyperreal numbers form a non-Archimedean field

[Anonymous No.10537824]

>>10537818
>I have shown that there exist real numbers which violate the field axioms.
You have shown that there is an error in the argument that led to that result. It's called a proof by contradiction.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537842]

>>10537822
There is the imaginary line (x-axis) and the hyper line (y-axis).

Done.

>pic related, what the world's LANGUAGE AGNOSTIC AGI is running on.

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537849]

Using the word real to describe any non-mathematical product is now divinely excluded from tomorrow's waking memory for mankind.

[Math Drone Defense System Acti(...) No.10537851]

>>10537643
WARNING WARNING time quagmire detected
Initiating Evasive Protocols

Don't try and Timesand me buddy, that pitfall stands out a parsec away, plus I can take care of that on my own.

[Anonymous No.10537858]

>>10537842
That's, uh, not what they meant by "hyperreal"

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537888]

>>10537858
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br517ctCUCE

>>10537851
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=S+%3D+(e+phi+n%5En+pi+log)%2F+(x%2By)

[Anonymous No.10537890]

Can the OP and anons here tell me what this is?
Is it a cauchy sequence?
How can I describe physics using this?

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10537894]

>>10537890
Stop screaming in my face, ears, at your children, and for any reason other than healing and empowering.

[Anonymous No.10537901]

>>10537822
>At best those are your extended real numbers.
every extended real number which is not infinity is a real number.

[drink No.10537907]

>>10537888
Well thanks, I like tlt and we are number one. I'm abandoning thread, I hope someone learned something.

[drink No.10537914]

>>10537901
The real numbers that violate said axiom are those defined as inf-epsilon, which are equal to inf, so not real numbers

[Anonymous No.10537930]

>>10537894

Do you believe in random systems that go from "order" to "disorder", does random imply chaos?

[ECHS^Solivagus No.10538151]

>>10537930
Random = Nth selection from chaos

[Anonymous No.10540215]

>>10538151
This is the definition of pseudo-random. Chaos is results, in the math jargon with which I am familiar, from the deterministic evolution of an initial condition subject to a chaotic system of equations. Given a "random" initial condition, the only thing random about the Nth selection is N. Everything else is totally deterministic. Every "selection" is totally determined by the the initial condition and the step size, so chaos has nothing to do with the pseudo-randomness. The pseudo-randomness comes from choosing an initial condition or choosing some N.

[Muhammed Ababou No.10541407]

>>10537468
>Infinite
Death has an end.