Redpill me on infinity

[Anonymous No.12019116]

[Anonymous No.12019119]

define infinity first

[Anonymous No.12019137]

>>12019119
Infinity is a basic term understood intuitively.

[Anonymous No.12019155]

>>12019119
An unbounded quantity greater than every real number

[This video had me crying No.12019160]

>>12019155
Wouldn't saying infinity is "greater than" another number then give it a position on the real number line? It can't be "greater than" because infinity isn't a number.

[Anonymous No.12019165]

>>12019160
read >>12019155
carefully, and it's obvious infinity isn't a number

[Anonymous No.12019173]

>>12019165
greater is a relation defined on real numbers
you cant define infinity using that
if youve already defined infinity, then yeah sure, you can extend the definition of greater to include x < infty
but not the other way around
also, wouldnt infinity bound itself

[Anonymous No.12019175]

>>12019173
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity

[Anonymous No.12019180]

>>12019116
it's pretty big

[Anonymous No.12019182]

>>12019175
wolfram isnt a proper definition machine
it just says that infinity IS an unbounded quantity greater than every real number, which, again
can only be said after defining it in another way
i could say that i is greater than every real number if we use the lexicographic ordering on complex numbers with imaginary part first followed by real part
that satisfies the wolfram "definition"
but then every single complex number with positive imaginary part is also infinity, its not well defined

[Anonymous No.12019191]

>>12019182
>wolfram isnt a proper definition machine
beats 4chan schizos any day

[Anonymous No.12019199]

>>12019191
but tooker himself uses wolframs "definitions" to back his own schizo shit
so ive turned very sour towards it

[Anonymous No.12019207]

>>12019199
tooker's "neighborhood of infinity" is bs he pulled out of his ass, not WA

[Anonymous No.12019752]

Infinity is an intuitive shorthand in most cases. It has a rigorous definition only in the context of a limit, where it's useful but doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.12019765]

>>12019752
Yeah we start describing it with an inverse there.

Infinitesimally approaching a tangent.

[Anonymous No.12019962]

>>12019116
looks like it needs a hat

[Anonymous No.12019978]

>>12019116
>>12019119
>>12019137
>>12019155
>>12019160
>>12019165
>>12019173
>>12019175
>>12019180
>>12019182
>>12019191
>>12019199
>>12019207
>>12019752
>>12019765
>>12019962
There are many kinds of infinity in mathematics:

Infinity as a limit or order-completion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind%E2%80%93MacNeille_completion

Infinity as a compactification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandroff_extension
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_at_infinity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere <--- especially useful in complex analysis where there is a STRONG duality between zeros and poles that you see everywhere in theorems

Infinity as a cardinal/cardinality of a set:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number

Infinity as an ordinal/order-type of a set:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number

[Anonymous No.12019980]

>>12019978
Forgot infinity as a measure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)

[Anonymous No.12020072]

>>12019116
Quantization is an illusion propagated by the parts of you that believe it is separate from all.

[Anonymous No.12020111]

>>12019978
I'll add infinity as numbers greater than any standard number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_numbers

[El Arcón No.12020303]

>>12019207
I didn't invent the neighborhood of infinity. I invented infinity hat and solved the Riemann hypothesis
>and solved dark energy
and solved classical electrogravity
>and solved quantum gravity
>and solved the fundamental problem of quantum field theory
>and refuted Bell's theorem
>and suggested the experiment which proved CPT violation
>and predicted spin-1 for the 2012 particle
>and devised a nice cosmology
>and did many other scientific things.
I got the phrase "neighborhood of infinity" from these pic related MIT course notes:
https://math.mit.edu/~jorloff/18.04/notes/topic2.pdf

>>12019165
It's obvious that infinity is a number. Just look at the duality (or qualitative likeness) or holomorphism and meromorphism. Infinity is the numerical value of the Riemann zeta function at z=1 when the RZF is taken as meromorphic over all of [math]\mathbb{C}[/math].

[El Arcón No.12020306]

>pic related MIT course notes

[El Arcón No.12020308]

Overall, I would say that controversial material doesn't make it into the undergraduate math curriculum at MIT yet. Maybe in a few years they will teach that it is racist to automatically assume that the equal sign is number-gendered but I don't think they started doing that yet.

[Anonymous No.12020326]

>>12020303
>infinity is a number
nope
An unbounded quantity greater than every real number

1) inf is number
2) inf is greater than every number
3) inf is greater than inf
hurr durr

[Anonymous No.12020335]

>>12019116
infinity = in excess of human comprehension
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v6dV3fQLzpM

[Anonymous No.12020337]

>>12020335
>ooga booga mysticism
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.12020342]

>>12019116
>Redpill me on infinity
It's a horizontal vagina and a womb tattoo

[El Arcón No.12020343]

>>12020326
>greater than every real number
>greater than every number
I can't tell if you're serious.

[Anonymous No.12020375]

>>12020343
projecting, the post

[Anonymous No.12020378]

>>12019116
The infinity can understood like "potential infinity" or "actual infinity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

[Anonymous No.12020387]

>>12020308
Your argument is flawed. It purports that, if you assume an entity has one property and derive a contradiction from it, you may assume everything derived from the assumption so long as you switch this property to a different one, and then proceed with the argument. This is obviously illogical and why the argument is undoubtedly incorrect.

[Anonymous No.12020541]

1)Infinity is a number larger than every finite number
2)Finite number is a number smaller than infinity

[Anonymous No.12020550]

Infinity is a spook, an abstraction.

You can pick five of, six of three of something etc.

I don't see infinity occurring in nature.

[Anonymous No.12020552]

>>12020550
Same as quadrillion.

[Anonymous No.12020563]

>>12020552
wrong, how many ways can you arrange 200 books?
200! >> quadrillion

[Anonymous No.12020569]

>>12020563
Have you actually arranged them that way? Or did you just arrange some symbols on paper to see that? If the latter, then infinity is no worse.

[Anonymous No.12020575]

>>12020569

what is atoms

not the sharpest pen are you?

[Anonymous No.12020582]

>>12020575
>what is atoms
Right, what is atoms?

[Anonymous No.12020584]

>>12020569
>what is sand on the beach
Nice try, pseud

[Anonymous No.12020586]

the symbols [math]\pm \infty[/math] are just auxiliary objects satisfying [math]x \leq \infty[/math] and [math]x \geq -\infty[/math] for all [math]x \in \mathbb{R}[/math]. in other words, they're defined such that [math]\mathbb{R} \cup \{ \pm \infty \}[/math] is an ordered set with largest and smallest element.

[Anonymous No.12020593]

>>12020584
Have you counted all the drops of sand? An impressive feat.

[Anonymous No.12020602]

>>12020593
>too stupid to stop
lol

[Anonymous No.12020603]

>>12020602
That's right, you need to stop somewhere, or you will continue to count to infinity.

[Anonymous No.12020630]

>>12020603
lol, so stupid, so wrong

[El Arcón No.12020644]

Yeah but the Riemann hypothesis is false, it is proven false, but everything on the internet says it is still an open question.

[Anonymous No.12020687]

>>12020552
distance between the milky way and andromeda is over 2 quadrillion cm

[Anonymous No.12020734]

>>12020644
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.12020738]

>>12019116
It is something without end.

[Anonymous No.12020742]

>>12020738
...end or beginning (in the case of the actual universe)

[El Arcón No.12020759]

>>12020734
A famous math problem.

[Anonymous No.12020761]

>>12020738
aka unbounded

[Anonymous No.12020766]

>>12020738
last line is bs

[Anonymous No.12020781]

>>12020759
But what did anon mean when they said the Riemann hypothesis is proven false, when did that happen?

[Anonymous No.12020789]

>>12020781
he's delusional

[El Arcón No.12020873]

>>12020781
In the last few years. Pic is the medium length NICE one, but I wrote a few papers at decreasing levels of fine nuance in the rigor. All of them show a negation, and there a couple of independent negations in there. They aren't all rewrites of the exact same disproof.

BEST: Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

NICE: Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

QUICK: Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236

FIRST: On The Riemann Zeta Function
https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

[Anonymous No.12020882]

>>12020789
>>12020873
told ya

[Anonymous No.12020891]

>>12019116
Infinity can't represent any aspect of physical world.

[Anonymous No.12020895]

>>12020891
?

[El Arcón No.12021038]

>>12020891
First off, mathematics is about abstraction. Secondly, there is plenty of infinity in the physical world. The Planck length is only the length at which quantum theory can no longer discern distances due to the Heisenberg uncertainty. It is a feature of the abstraction of quantum theory only, not a feature of nature, so there are infinite number of places you can set a book on a shelf, there are infinite number of shapes a cloud might take, there are an infinite number of positions between any "here" and any "there." Those things are all pretty physical because the Planck length by which one might refute those physical incarnations of infinity as infinite spectrum is purely an abstract notion related to the Fourier transform.

There are an infinite number of exactly specified things which might take place this afternoon, etc. Most generally, in theory we break down the phase space of quantum statistical mechanics into discrete cubes of volume [math] \hbar[/math] but that is a feature of the abstraction only, not of the underlying physical world. The real phase space of things that could happen this afternoon is not discretized.

[Anonymous No.12021076]

Oh look, another thread by Tooker so that he can stroke his own ego.

Fuck off already

[Anonymous No.12021157]

>>12020766
not as much as the bbt is.
The irony is, it was told by a creationist, who fought the strawman fabricated by the catholic church itself.

[Anonymous No.12021183]

>>12019116
Infinity in the end always effectively boils down to something finite.
Space may be infinite, but the causally connected regions in it are always finite.
Time may be infinite, but everything will come to eternal halt at some point. Time for all intents and purposes "ends".
Singularities always have ended up being a sign of a lack of understanding so far. Why should that stop?

[Anonymous No.12021189]

>>12021183
>Infinity in the end always effectively boils down to something finite.
congratz, you win today's dumb-contest

[Anonymous No.12021208]

Fuck off Tooker, you don't get to pretend you proved anything about the Zeta function when you admitted that using hyperreals is too complex for you.

[El Arcón No.12021219]

>>12021076
I don't make my threads for that reason and I'm a pretty humble person, all things considered. I didn't make this thread, but when I do make a thread I do it to (plan A) increase knowledge, or (plan B) increase the crimes of those parties who intercede to prevent the increase of knowledge which I desire. Both plans advance my goals.

[Anonymous No.12021229]

>>12021219
>I'm a pretty humble person,
No you're not, you're a narcissistic asshole who can't take even the slightest bit of well intended criticism without assuming it's some sort of conspiracy against you.

You constantly evade bans and post the same old debunked shit and it's shitting up the board.

[Anonymous No.12021257]

>>12021189
What is your problem?
I'm saying that in reality there is probably no such thing as infinity.

I wasn't talking about mathematics.

[El Arcón No.12021258]

>>12021208
>when you admitted that using hyperreals is too complex for you.
That wasn't me. My criticism of the hyperreals is that they lack sufficient complexity. I needed for my own model something with a scale greater than Robinson's limiteds and less than his unlimiteds. This worked out to be the big part, pic related from
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
which is taken as a binary quantity in Robinson's analytical framework, Big(x)=0 or Big(x)=1. As I derived it, Big(x) for X in R can take on all values between zero and one. This is the so-called "odd level of aleph" that I described in my previous work before switching research directions to pursue pure math. I was surprised, honestly, that no one had already come up with what i came up with. In my earlier physics stuff, I was writing about it like it must exist as something well known of which I myself was simply unaware. Turns out, I had to invent the whole thing because no one else ever did it.

[Anonymous No.12021269]

>>12021257
How is space finite? What is beyond its borders? prohint: the big bang theory is a lie enforced by the agent of abrahamic narrative.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZPEFlVdIIWC9/

[Anonymous No.12021271]

> agent
agents

[Anonymous No.12021278]

>>12021258
>My criticism of the hyperreals is that they lack sufficient complexity
No, your problem is that a properly defined theory doesn't let you spout random bullshit so you made your own.

[Anonymous No.12021329]

>>12021269
Space is infinite, but the space causally connected to (You) is always finite.
Beyond its borders is just more space, but there is literally no way to know what exactly is behind there.
Space expanding makes stuff beyond a certain distance move faster away from us than light speed. It's literally impossible to ever get there.

[Anonymous No.12021333]

>>12021269
It's possible the event horizon at the edge of the universe has smearing of all the information on it's inside. Sort of like a reversed black hole.

[El Arcón No.12021389]

Space being infinite or finite, IMO, is more about whether space is a continuum or discrete than it is about it's linear extent. How many positions are there in a finite amount of space? I think there's an infinite number of them.

>>12021278
What makes Robinson's analytical framework "proper" and mine "improper?"

[Anonymous No.12021402]

>>12021389
You haven't defined your expanded real field at all, and you just assumed the existence of "infinity hat" with a bunch of convenient properties and never proved it exists.

[Anonymous No.12021554]

>>12021329
> an absolute is inconceivable, thus it's not existant
I quoted it so you can notice the mistake in your logic by yourself.
> Space expanding
where?
> makes stuff beyond a certain distance move faster away from us than light speed.
It is a new "revelation" and you wanna know why did they have to introduce it? Because of astronomers finding objects closer and closer to the presumed "border" of the universe, thus it is inevitable that they will find something beyond that border soon enough. Quick, must jew faster! A true scientist would be excited by the practical possibility to prove/disprove his guess, not those scholasts who secretly work for (((Vatican)))

[El Arcón No.12021703]

>>12021402
If you think I'm doing anything related to number fields, then you have familiarity with my research program. Regarding proving the existence of infinity hat, I don't know what you mean. Give me a proof of the existence of infinity without a hat so I can closely examine your criticism and compare it to what I have done.

>inevitable that they will find something beyond that border soon enough.
The CMB is where photons stop moving along straight lines so that seems unlikely. Astronomy works because the late universe is optically clear but the early universe too hot for that and it was opaque.

[Anonymous No.12021885]

>>12021703
I'm not the anon you're referring to but what do you make of the criticism that your definition of the reals does not follow current conventional definition? Not that adopting a new definition is inherently problematic, but it does restate the original hypothesis in a way that diverges from its original intention, does it not?

[Anonymous No.12022003]

>>12020303
Bell's Theorem is horse hockey.
Requires data from outside of space-time to properly refute.

[Anonymous No.12022097]

Infinity = 1

What is 2 except infinity split in half, of which the mere act of splitting it creates 2 infinities which are equally infinite.

1 and 1 = 2

[El Arcón No.12022185]

>>12021885
>criticism that your definition of the reals does not follow current conventional definition?
I introduced my definition specifically to show the relative inferiority of the conventions which I do not follow. I assume you're talking about the field axioms. My neighborhood of the origin is an explicit number field in the usual way but then there is a neighborhood of infinity as well. My definition does everything the field axioms do, and more. Furthermore, I respond with a criticism of my own that numbers were geometric in nature for thousands of years until this current trend of algebraic definition materialized in the last century or so. In that way, my definition is the one that follows the thousands of years of accepted convention and it is these algebraic definitions which are the odd ones.

> it does restate the original hypothesis in a way that diverges from its original intention, does it not?
absolutely it does NOT!!! Anything that can be called "current conventional definition" was published at least years after Riemann published and none of it came into common usage until at least decades after. In 1859 when Riemann published, real numbers were still geometric in nature.

[Anonymous No.12022188]

>>12022097
this is some advanced mathematics

[El Arcón No.12022232]

>>12022185
>the relative inferiority of the conventions which I do not follow.
These other conventions are not even adequate to answer a question as simple as the Riemann hypothesis. That sounds kind of sarcastic, but actually it is not.

[Anonymous No.12022237]

>>12022232
>a question as simple as the Riemann hypothesis.
retard

[Anonymous No.12022272]

>>12021703
>Give me a proof of the existence of infinity without a hat
In standard analysis, infinity isn't an object, when we write
[math]\lim\limits_{x \to \infty} f(x) = \infty[/math]
it's just a shorthand for
[math]\forall x \in \mathbb{R}, \exists y \in \mathbb{R} \ni \forall z \in \mathbb{R}, z > y \Rightarrow f(z) > x[/math]
In nonstandard analysis, people prefer to use [math]\omega[/math] over [math]\infty[/math]
In that case, it's the equivalence class of a sequence such that [math]\omega_i > r[/math] for any real r if i belongs to some set that's part of a free ultrafilter on [math]\mathbb{N}[/math]
Do note that it is not unique.
Its existence can be proven with an explicit construction: let [math]\omega = \left [ \left \langle 1,2,... \right \rangle \right ][/math]
for any real r, the set [math]\left \{ i \mid i < r \right \}[/math] is finite, therefore its complementary [math]\left \{ i \mid r < i \right \}[/math] is cofinite, thus belongs to any free ultrafilter on the naturals, thus [math]\omega > r[/math] for any r.

[Anonymous No.12022319]

>>12020873
you haven't meaningfully addressed the criticisms to your articles. choosing a non-standard definition to concepts changes their meaning. at best, you have disproved the reimann hypothesis in a system of your construction. i say this because you don't attempt to show equivalency between your definitions and the standard ones.

[El Arcón No.12022380]

>>12022272
Ok, now I see what you mean. I proved the existence of infinity hat in sections 4.2 and 4.4 of my long paper.
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
I develop two independent proofs of the existence of infinity hat, one in each section. I use the Cauchy equivalence for the proof in each case. The purpose of the proofs are two give the equivalence class definitions of the real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity, but the result carries over trivially to infinity hat itself.

[El Arcón No.12022386]

>>12022319
You haven't "meaningfully" cited a criticism which I failed to address.

[Anonymous No.12022416]

>>12022386
Anon's current criticism seems genuine to me. If you're not using the same terms as everyone else then you should ensure proper effort is taken to explain what your notions mean.

[El Arcón No.12022422]

>>12022416
I think you are being stupid on purpose because you don't realize what a terrible blunder that is at the end of the history of your people.

>current criticism seems genuine
Which?

>ensure proper effort is taken to explain
I think the 140 page paper I wrote about it does properly explain the notions

[Anonymous No.12022426]

>>12022380
lmao Tooker you never learn
you have shown that the midpoint is unique if there is one, you haven't shown that it exists
Obviously it doesn't when one "endpoint" is infinity, which you invoker later.
Also, for clarity's sake, people only talk of line segments when both endpoints are real, otherwise it's called a ray.

[El Arcón No.12022433]

>>12022426
what was your understanding of Theorem 2.3.21 then?

>otherwise it's called a ray.
A ray only has one endpoint. A line segment is a line with two endpoints.

[Anonymous No.12022441]

>>12022433
Can you explain to me what the coordinates of the center of circle B are, without invoking "infinity as a real" since you haven't proven its existence yet.

[Anonymous No.12022447]

>>12022422
I haven't read the paper so I'm deferring to >>12022319's judgment, which is how society works. If people can't get what you're saying, and I believe that only the two of us would be able to fluently resolve all your notions, then it would be irresponsible of me to try to stand up for you when I know that others won't be able to get it. You have to do the job of communicating with society yourself, you can't expect me (a member of society) to do it for you. Bear in mind, however, that I'm not saying you're not allowed to rely on other people being smart, since that would wreck the concept of academia. Indeed, science does require a number of people to be competent in a field of expertise to the degree that an independent person can correctly receive your essay. In this sense, peer review does require society to be able to communicate on your behalf, but again: I'm not part of that aspect of society.

The paper doesn't have to be complete to be accepted, it has to be understandable. If it's not then you haven't fully communicated. What anon said is something that I recognize as an earnest attempt to start a dialogue, and those are the people you need to be working with to get at least one member of society to work for you. You can dismiss me just fine and it won't be an issue, since I'm not going to be able to help you in a way you can appreciate, but this can't apply to everyone. Notably, that anon does deserve your best attempt to communicate.

[El Arcón No.12022459]

>>12022441
>coordinates of the center of circle B are, without invoking "infinity as a real"

[Anonymous No.12022493]

>>12022459
And then what, do we just "forget" to revert the chart back when we move to the reals?
Do you not see an obvious contradiction in saying "there exists a regular real bigger than any other real"?

[El Arcón No.12022523]

>>12022447
>I haven't read the paper
>can't get what you're saying
What have you done to try to get what I'm saying?

>You have to do the job of communicating with society yourself
That is wrong. All I can do is put my paper out there. If I could make other people read it, I might do so. However, I don't have that power. Communication takes at least two people but I only control one person.

>science does require a number of people to be competent in a field of expertise to the degree that an independent person can correctly receive your essay
This doesn't give due consideration to the people who can employ censorship to prevent my paper from being received by those parties you refer to. I think one of the main points of throwing me in the slave hole was to prevent me from ever communicating with the other educated people, specifically the ones who have the interest of science in their hearts and minds as opposed to the national interests of those enemies of mine whom I would strike with genocide.

>it has to be understandable
If you don't read it, it doesn't matter if it's understandable.

>If it's not then you haven't fully communicated
Neither have I fully communicated if censors prevent the dissemination of the paper to its intended audience.

>those are the people you need to be working with to get at least one member of society to work for you
I have faith that God will grant me the power to exterminate everyone who doesn't do what I tell them to do, and as God's rightful king I won't need to work with anyone to accomplish my goals. I will have people that work for me, and I will be their king. My power will come from heaven or I will never have the power I'm looking for, and I'll die bitter and cold and alone like ten million other men before me. You're wrong. You all need to hope I'll let you blow kisses at the hem of my garment. I don't need to hope that one of you will let work with him. True story.

In the meantime, I do enjoy scholarly pursuits.

[Anonymous No.12022525]

>>12022523
>All I can do is put my paper out there
If that were true there'd be no reason for you to post here. Again: I'm not the one who needs your attention, I have no reason to read the paper because it's my job to defer to others who will be able to provide qualitative feedback.

[El Arcón No.12022531]

>>12022493
> "there exists a regular real bigger than any other real"?
First, tell me who you are quoting so i examine the context.

>And then what, do we just "forget" to revert the chart back when we move to the reals?
You ask, "Then what?," but I'm not sure which thing you referring to that "then what" might continue.

[El Arcón No.12022539]

>>12022525
What s your job, then?

>no reason for you to post here
4chan is one of the places I put my paper so I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

[El Arcón No.12022591]

Overall, you all stupid fucking shitsucking wastes of life can go back through every post I ever made. Never once did I evver respond to a well-formed criticism with something other than a well-formed and scholarly response. Every time I ever said, "Shut up, I will kill you," I was replying to a comment that can be accurately paraphrased as, "Lies are true and truth is lies, so you're wrong tooky too!"

You think, "No he said that too much. He must have been saying it to truthful criticisms," but what evidence do you have to support that idea? Are you just going with your gut? Does the very large volume of people claiming that lies are true and that the truth is lies give you the idea that lies must be true or else so many people wouldn't say it?

For the rest of you stupid motherfuckers who are not educated enough to know the difference between the truth and lie, and yet have still deemed yourselves to be individuals in possession of a relevant opinion, you are also all people whose families are going to get killed.

[Anonymous No.12022607]

>>12022591
The people who would take you seriously don't benefit from your responses to the other anons.

[El Arcón No.12022609]

>Oh I don't know anything about it
>but still my opinion is relevant
>these people say their criticisms are valid
>and he says he is the Lord and they are invalid
>and I have literally no knowledge about whether or not any of that is true
>so in my opinion
>I'm going to assume what they say is true and what he says isn't
>(lol, I got hired for that but don't tell)
>and then I'll write that up in my own report and call it science
>maybe I'll even capitalize the S on science.
>"It is not known whether or not the truth is a lie..."
(it is known, you cretins)
>because I'm fucking retarded
>but the people who prey on my retardation told me actually I'm really smart
>and i'll never stop believing that until my dying day
>which I'm totally sure won't be at Tooker's hands
>even though i have no way to know how I will die
>I'm betting the lives of everyone in my family that it won't be at Tooker's hand.
>he says he is the Lord
>they say he isn't
>but cant kill him
>like they usually do
>and even while I know they couldn't kill the Messiah
>Im just going to figure that it some other thing
>and that the people who say lies are true are telling the truth
>when they say he is not the Lord
>even in the absence of any evidence to support that claim

[El Arcón No.12022620]

>>12022607
My eternal glory benefits when all the things I wrote come to pass.

[El Arcón No.12022626]

There's about 3-4 billion people on Earth waiting for the Messiah to show up. What makes you so very certain that I am not him?

[Anonymous No.12022629]

>>12022620
Right, well, speaking as the actual creator of all things, let me tell you, I don't give power to malice like yours.

[El Arcón No.12022659]

>>12022591
>"Lies are true and truth is lies, so you're wrong tooky too!"
So, let it be known: the people with no learning are not able to discern the truth from a lie. Then they say, "Well, actually it's not known whether or the truth is true," but that itself is a lie told to hide the embarrassing blemish of supreme ignorance. All of this is 100% known. There is no debate about what the basic facts of mathematics are there is only the opinions of them who do and do not know those basic facts.

On the other hand, there are people who devoted their lives to the study of trash and they are not familiar with those basic facts. Unlike most people who do not know the basic facts, these people evaluating me according to what is right in their own eyes deem themselves to be scholars with a relevant opinion. The welder at the machine shop doesn't know, and he also knows that his opinion on such things wouldn't mean much. These other people have deluded themselves enough to come the most stereotypical Dunning--Kruger of all time. They say, "Since I don't know what's true, I need to assume either could be true," but they ought to say, "Since I don't know what's true, my opinion is not relevant."

So I will kill their families to punish them and on that day they will know the truth: My name is The Lord.

[El Arcón No.12022682]

>>12022629
If my hatred of evil looks like malice to you, then count your family among those other families. I don't want your culture propagating into the future.

[Anonymous No.12022707]

>>12022682
Do you want to die? Because I don't care if your posts literally violates US law, not to mention the rules of this site, and wouldn't stoop that low to address a threat to begin with.

I've heard your threat. Are you ready? Do you want me to prove my claim? Is that how today ends for you?

[El Arcón No.12022752]

Look at the closing passage of the entire Holy Bible. The dogs, whoever they are, the sexually immoral including them who put these sexual torture implants in my dick with the full blessing of this person
>>12022629
no doubt, the Scientologists and other satanists with their magic arts, murderers and idolaters, and then finally them who declare that lies are true and that truth is lies. The practitioners of falsehood who say, "Even though I know nothing about it, my opinion matters. I can rightfully pretend to knowledge I do not have." All of these people are cursed. The Lord's hatred is upon them. It is the conclusion of the entire book.

So who then are these other people who think I am wrong to hate them? What culture is passed down in their family which leads them to say, "Practicing falsehood is fine, just keep your emotional tone real high." I will kill them all. If my authority is to mean anything, it can't come to me from human hands.

Another book agent not going to buy my book? Another NatSec person leaving me in the slave hole? I don't know what he means, but if the heavenly authority never comes to then I am fine to die grasping for it. It will come to me, I believe sincerely, and then I will make these people regret the things they have written, calling my love of goodness malice. I will kill their families to amputate the culture held in them.

[El Arcón No.12022766]

>>12022707
I don't want to die. I am ready to die at any moment, or to go into the sick defilement for the rest of my days at any moment, and I was ready for it before I set out on this path for myself. If you could do those things to me, my opinion is that they would have been done long ago. I do want you to try to prove your claim so the witnesses will know the truth when you fail. I don't know how today will end. I do know that nothing will undermine God's plan.

[Anonymous No.12022799]

>>12022766
Then, since you have no reason to believe me, I'll ask you this:

Would you, kindly, stop advocating malice?

It doesn't matter who or what I am.

[El Arcón No.12022836]

>>12022799
I advocate all the things advocated by the God of Abraham and nothing more. It does matter to me who you are; avenging means vindictive and I want to know your name, or your engineer's.

[Anonymous No.12022844]

>>12022836
Ethnocide wasn't discussed.

[El Arcón No.12022862]

Not only was it discussed, it was promised in the Torah: the book of my people.

[Anonymous No.12022895]

>>12022862
Yes, but that's not ethnocide. That's a specific contract with a specific lineage. Do you really think I'm going to hold the semitic peoples to the words of their ancestors if they're willing to forego those words? This is a game of chicken, and I'm certainly not going to back down. If they want to push their words onto others, I'll be willing to use their words against them. Notice how, even in the quote you cited, it only applies to the specific tribes of a very specific group of people, with whom belief in a covenant did emerge? Yes, that's right: It's only with them. I'm not going to be attacking the tribes of any other group of people. And I'm not even going to do it for that entire group, only the people that try to hold me to my word. You think any other type of entity is forced to live up to a contract they literally don't even remember making? You think my divine physiology was our equivalent of age-of-consent worthy? You want me to act on these words, why?

Bear in mind: The ONLY reason I thought to punish these people so was because they lied about me to the public. That hurts. So I want to hurt them back. But it's an emotional decision on my part, not a rational one. They asked for it so I said fine, I'll do it, but only because you asked, and only to those who asked for it.

That's how I really feel. If you can't accept that, I'll cry.

[El Arcón No.12022987]

>>12022895
It is ethnocide. Other than that, I am the Sovereign Lord and I'm going to do whatever I feel like doing, and later when the Bible gets written they will make it to support what I did.

>I want to hurt them back.
When the wicked flourish and the righteous perish, the people's sense of right and wrong is perverted. I do want t hurt them back because I am wrathful and vindictive, but I also to give the gift of knowledge to the people in the future who will see clearly what is ok and what will get your family killed. Right now, you think, "I have no reason to fear the Lord," but the people int he future will see more clearly than you.

[Anonymous No.12023094]

If there was a messiah, they wouldn't be so unmistakably wrong about everything, right Tooky?

[El Arcón No.12023437]

>Tooky
The logo for the Vatican. A lot of people heard that the USA Corporation is owned by the Vatican Corporation. A lot of the officers of the USA Corporation are not going to like it when they find out who owns the Vatican corporation.

[Anonymous No.12023789]

>>12019116
sideways 8 + 1 = sideways 8

only """"number"""" (not a number) where adding a finite sum to it ends up = itself, kinda like multiplying by 0

but if you know anything,

sideways 8 + 1 > sideways 8 + 2 > sideways 8 + 3...

read on Aleph_null, knowing this will help

"Cardinal numbers (or cardinals) are numbers that say how many of something there are, for example: one, two, three, four, five, six. They are sometimes called counting numbers.

The cardinality of a set is the cardinal number that tells how many things are in the set. "

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_null

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88

I only included the second link because i almost mistook it for the third. But im not gona take it off either

[Anonymous No.12024096]

>>12023789
>sideways 8 + 1 > sideways 8 + 2 > sideways 8 + 3...
the Order is that, but size? From the point of R, they're all the same inf+1=inf and inf+2=inf

also, this
https://youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88?t=23m10s

[Anonymous No.12024117]

>>12019116
You just want to start that dumb semantic argument about "infinity isn't a number!!!" that every college sophomore in a math class starts at every opportunity

You know what is fucking meant, you're not confused, and neither is anyone else

[Anonymous No.12024122]

>>12024117
>semantic
kys

[Anonymous No.12024139]

>>12024117
i didn't know the difference between countable and uncountable infinity and when i first leart it my mind was blown. there is a very strong difference between the two and its non-trivial

[Anonymous No.12024202]

>>12021269
cope

[Anonymous No.12024400]

wrong size, thanks for the catch
>inf+1=inf and inf+2=inf
yes and no, if you think of the cardinal number of the inf set being inf huge cause it contains all positive integers, but if you add 1 to said set of positive integers, and then you add two,
the cardinality of the set would "thought to have" remained the same, while the order or "literal sum" is inf + 1 is less than inf + 2
if you think of the inf hotel example paradox whatever
The hotel always has a room for guest no matter how many rooms are needed, however if two people walked in at the same time and asked for two separate rooms, compared to one person asking for a room, then the total number of occupied rooms is clearly larger having two rather then one.
You can also think using this scenario that each room is occupied by a single positive integer, and by that rationale, The total number of occupied rooms can be thought of as the cardinality of the inf set.
Theirs also the scenario that all the rooms are full in the inf yuge hotel
Since no person/number can occupy two rooms, they ask each guess to move to the next room over, and if two people moved in they would ask both people to move to the next rooms over and to ask those people in the next room... so on and so forth.
If you think that now because i said that, that you cannot add 1 to inf because 1 is already Inside the set of all positive integers you are completely correct, and this is where numbers start to break down.
Instead of adding a number that is already included in the inf set, lets call this new symbol ($), the new next number after all positive integers to represent the next number after infinity, and then instead of creating more symbols every time i want to do this, lets just multiply the new number it by a linearly rising variable every propigation

[Anonymous No.12024407]

>>12023789
>>12024096
>>12024400
>y..you cant do that onichan!
bitch humans have made math their bitch from day one, the idea of a purely ordered set found in nature is fucking blasphemy in the real world. (Aleph 1)
People in other cultures before westernization had 50 different characters before they added a single 0, WHICH 1/2 the world wasn't even aware of using during this time!
Did you know we called mathematical ideas imaginary numbers?
so in short
infinity + 1 is a set that contains 1 to inf and then an additional 1
infinity + $ is a set that contains 1 to inf and then $
infinity + 2$ is > than infinity + $ because the new number is twice the amount in the first compared to the second.
can you ever run out of ideas for new numbers? no
can you ever run out of new positive integers? no
can you ever run out of numbers between any two points separated on a number line? no
can you have a number that's inf huge relative to another?
the cardinality of infinity is the number of numbers within the set of infinity.
NOW try talking about infinity as not being a number when you read the last thing i just said...
please discuss and correct me.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-aleph-null-and-aleph-1
this guy def help can tell you better then i can.

[El Arcón No.12024861]

>>12024400
>yes and no
Only no, pic related! Everyone was wrong about infinity, and your example about the hotel makes the case for why the prevailing, or recently prevailing ideas about infinity are no sufficient for transfinite mathematics. It has been considered sufficient for real analysis when it is an out-of-scope bounding limit but once you start talking about infinity plus two, the concept of infinity which is superficially sufficient for real analysis becomes insufficient for the transfinite analysis. My contribution to real analysis was to show that ordinary ideas about infinity are also insufficient in the purely finite regime, without the transfinite consideration, and this is the main thing which is "controversial" about what I've done. However, your point about infinity plus two works just the same for infinity minus two, which ought to be a real number since it is less than infinity.

It's back to the drawing board where I have sketched out how it really work. Forget about the old, I have done a new thing, as it were.

[Anonymous No.12024924]

>>12024202
Are you also from Yale? Yell some more.

[El Arcón No.12024925]

I do sincerely hate it with every fiber of my being that the clerics have invaded my priesthood. I have no use for clerics. Their learning is detestable to me. It is worse than useless. It worse than abject ignorance. What I need in my priest class are people who can understand the word of the Lord when it comes to their ear, which means that the technorati should be my priests (and killers for priest work not related to technical or clerical nuance.) As it is, I can post Remark 4.4.7, which makes an undeniable case, but then the clerics that have invaded my priesthood can say, "Haha, Lord! That's where you're wrong! Since we have avoided learning how to even understand the words you use, we can quite easily deny it!" I hate the clerics. I have no use for them. I can say to them, "So you see that infinity hat is undeniable," and they will say, "Well, no. Actually you had gay sex about five times circa 2010 and you write mean things so infinity hat is pretty iffy." I really do hate the clerics. I hate their learning. I hate their ways. It would be better to drool all day and collect snot than to pursue the course of study they have pursued. I despise them. They come to my threads and say, "I can't even remotely understand the Word of God, but I am an important cleric well-qualified to pontificate on all things, so gather closely and hearken to my wisdom which tells me that I should opine on the Word of God which I can not understand." I hate them so much. They pervert what is good and right when they preach their clerical ways: the Scientology and the other cult nonsense as it has been since days long gone. I hate them. All of their learning is garbage but like a well-trained snake oil salesman, they are able to convince everyone they meet that snake oil really is the panacea they proclaim it to be. I hate them. It is not even lake water they peddle, it is deadly poison. I hate it that they claim to be my priests when they cannot even understand what I say.

[Anonymous No.12024933]

>tooker had gay sex
lmao

[Anonymous No.12024986]

>>12024925
>wall-of-text schizo
errytime

[Anonymous No.12025023]

>>12024925
What the fuck is this picture lol

[El Arcón No.12025081]

>>12025023
It's an infographic detailing the development of what came to be called "golf rumors." The rumors, which were true, were that my negative time theory in cosmology was extended ALMOST IMMEDIATELY to a negative frequency application in quantum optics (since frequency is inverse time) and they found a way to cross laser beams to make a free energy beam shoot out. This is the "negative frequency resonant beam" and it's like crossing the beams in Ghostbusters except it's a good thing instead of a bad thing. When Lockheed was saying in 2014 that they were going to have "truck-sized" fusion reactors in a few years, that was just a mild obfuscation of the fact that all you need for free energy is an optical table so it is a small device. Then you point the free energy beam into a boiler and VIOLA!

I am not a quantum optics guy. However, this is my understanding of the mechanism. Lasers are in phase and monochromatic. That makes it possible to create surfaces of constant phase as standing waves in crossed beams. You cross the beams to get a surface of E=0 constant phase in the intersection. E=0 is the boundary condition of the surface of a piece of metal in classical electromagnetism. In the laser beams, this is a "relativistic inhomogeneity" which is "solitonic" in character because the E=0 condition makes the standing wave more like a standing absence of a wave. Then they have this virtual piece of metal in the crossed beams and they can do the virtual photo-electric effect on it to get free energy. I call it "stimulated emission from the vacuum" so as to state the mechanism in a second quantized analogy with the famous atomic stimulated emission well known in first quantization.

[El Arcón No.12025085]

Like I said, I'm not really a quantum optics guy so I might be messing up the details. Pic related, however, since I am a physicist I am sure that this "greater than" condition means free energy. Also, the note about directing inquiries at the top of the PDF is highly irregular and it tells you the reported result was YUUUGE. After the published, the government used meme plutonium and MK Ultra to suppress it and now it's ~10 yrs later. Pic from:
>Soliton-induced relativistic-scattering and amplification
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0256

Also relevant giving the theoretical basis in negative frequency.
>Negative frequency resonant radiation
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2689
I think this idea was stimulated by my proposition of negative time a few months earlier.

Also, "Rubino" turned into a regular contributor on ZeroHedge after Golf Rumors became a thing.

[Anonymous No.12025234]

>>12020072
based