Why do people such as Olcott insist that it is OK to map a category
error to a true/false value? You can't, all you can map a category
error to in the domain of computable functions is signal(exception).

/Flibble

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 13:50:28 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Why do people such as Olcott insist that it is OK to map a category
> error to a true/false value? You can't, all you can map a category
> error to in the domain of computable functions is signal(exception).

Because there is nothing special about signals/exceptions. They can be incorporated into the type-signature of any pure function just like return values.
And the signals themselves can be Boolean or Numeric values.

Languages based on algebraic effect handlers do that already.
https://www.eff-lang.org/

Such programming languages are generally known as "effect systems" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_system ).
The moment you specify the side-effects of your function it becomes a pure function again.

To say it otherwise... why do you think there's something magical/special about signals/exceptions?
They are just another output of the function.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 05:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 13:50:28 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Why do people such as Olcott insist that it is OK to map a category
> > error to a true/false value? You can't, all you can map a category
> > error to in the domain of computable functions is
> > signal(exception).
>
> Because there is nothing special about signals/exceptions. They can
> be incorporated into the type-signature of any pure function just
> like return values. And the signals themselves can be Boolean or
> Numeric values.
>
> Languages based on algebraic effect handlers do that already.
> https://www.eff-lang.org/
>
> Such programming languages are generally known as "effect systems" (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_system ). The moment you specify
> the side-effects of your function it becomes a pure function again.
>
> To say it otherwise... why do you think there's something
> magical/special about signals/exceptions? They are just another
> output of the function.

Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.

/Flibble

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:05:23 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.

Only in your model. Not in mine.

Exceptions are just an implementation detail. They don't change the semantics of the function.

In the program below the function f(x) and g(x) are equivalent.

In [1]: # %load pointless-exceptions.py
...: def f(x): return True if x == 1 else False
...:
...: def g(x):
...: class T(Exception): pass
...: class F(Exception): pass
...: try:
...: if x == 1: raise(T) #
...: raise(F)
...: except T:
...: return True
...: except F:
...: return False
...:

In [2]: f(1) == g(1)
Out[2]: True

In [3]: f(2) == g(2)
Out[3]: True

In [4]: f(3) == g(3)
Out[4]: True

On 8/13/22 9:19 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:05:23 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.
>
> Only in your model. Not in mine.
>
> Exceptions are just an implementation detail. They don't change the semantics of the function.

Doesn't he get to define the model he is using?

You are being inconsistent here.

>
> In the program below the function f(x) and g(x) are equivalent.
>
> In [1]: # %load pointless-exceptions.py
> ...: def f(x): return True if x == 1 else False
> ...:
> ...: def g(x):
> ...: class T(Exception): pass
> ...: class F(Exception): pass
> ...: try:
> ...: if x == 1: raise(T) #
> ...: raise(F)
> ...: except T:
> ...: return True
> ...: except F:
> ...: return False
> ...:
>
> In [2]: f(1) == g(1)
> Out[2]: True
>
> In [3]: f(2) == g(2)
> Out[3]: True
>
> In [4]: f(3) == g(3)
> Out[4]: True
>
>

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:26:58 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are being inconsistent here.
Define "inconsistent"

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:26:58 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/13/22 9:19 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:05:23 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.
> >
> > Only in your model. Not in mine.
> >
> > Exceptions are just an implementation detail. They don't change the semantics of the function.
> Doesn't he get to define the model he is using?
>
> You are being inconsistent here.
Let me make my point even clearer. For the intellectual infant trapped in Richard's aging body.

This moron don't actually understand the halting problem; or the liar's paradox (and the implications thereof) any more than Olcott does.

The point in a question: If I am being consistently inconsistent. Am I consistent; or inconsistent?

You can CHOOSE to interpret my being either way. But which interpretation is true?

On 8/13/22 9:39 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:26:58 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/13/22 9:19 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:05:23 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Signal is a different *category* to normal return value, dear.
>>>
>>> Only in your model. Not in mine.
>>>
>>> Exceptions are just an implementation detail. They don't change the semantics of the function.
>> Doesn't he get to define the model he is using?
>>
>> You are being inconsistent here.
> Let me make my point even clearer. For the intellectual infant trapped in Richard's aging body.
>
> This moron don't actually understand the halting problem; or the liar's paradox (and the implications thereof) any more than Olcott does.
>
> The point in a question: If I am being consistently inconsistent. Am I consistent; or inconsistent?
>
> You can CHOOSE to interpret my being either way. But which interpretation is true?
>
>

You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point that out.

You won't indicate what system you are talking about and complain when
people interprete you words based on the system THEY chose to be using.

You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.

Note, you may want to look at https://www.skepdick.org as you aren't
being a skepdick, just a dick.

If this site is yours, then you have just revealed that you don't
actually believe in it.

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "Polite"

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point that out.
So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!

You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define "broken".

> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and complain when
> people interprete you words based on the system THEY chose to be using.
>
> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
Look in the mirror.

You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!

> Note, you may want to look at https://www.skepdick.org as you aren't
> being a skepdick, just a dick.
I know I am being a dick. And I told you about it.

The difference is that YOU don't know that YOU are being a dick.

By making me follow rules that you don't follow.

> You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "Polite"
You are 100% correct! I don't know how to define "polite". But I do know how to BE polite.

But people who keep over-stating the importance the definitions (while refusing to practice what they preach) don't deserve any politeness.

On 8/13/22 9:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point that out.
> So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!
>
> You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define "broken".

I don't NEED to define broken as I accept the standard definition.

From Merrian Webster:

Definition of broken
1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
// broken windows
2 : damaged or altered by or as if by breaking (see BREAK entry 1): such as
a : having undergone or been subjected to fracture
// a broken leg
b : not working properly
//a broken camera
c of land surfaces : being irregular, interrupted, or full of obstacles
// a long broken ridge
d : violated by transgression : not kept or honored
// a broken promise
e : DISCONTINUOUS, INTERRUPTED
// a broken sleep
f : disrupted by change
g of a tulip flower : having an irregular, streaked, or blotched
pattern especially from virus infection
3 a : made weak or infirm
// his old, broken body
b : subdued completely : CRUSHED, SORROWFUL
// a broken heart
// a broken spirit
c : BANKRUPT
d : reduced in rank
//was broken from sergeant to private
4 a : cut off : DISCONNECTED
//spoke a few broken words
b : imperfectly spoken or written
// broken English
5 : not complete or full
//a broken bale of hay
6 : disunited by divorce, separation, or desertion of one parent
// children from broken homes
// a broken family

2b, seems apt and fits the context.

You may fit in definition 4b or 5 though.

>
>> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and complain when
>> people interprete you words based on the system THEY chose to be using.
>>
>> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
> Look in the mirror.
>
> You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!

I just quoted it,.

>
>> Note, you may want to look at https://www.skepdick.org as you aren't
>> being a skepdick, just a dick.
> I know I am being a dick. And I told you about it.
>
> The difference is that YOU don't know that YOU are being a dick.
>
> By making me follow rules that you don't follow.

Good that you admit what you are.
>
>> You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "Polite"
> You are 100% correct! I don't know how to define "polite". But I do know how to BE polite.

Maybe you should try it then.

Note, I start polite with people until the prove to me that they don't
deserve the treatment.

>
> But people who keep over-stating the importance the definitions (while refusing to practice what they preach) don't deserve any politeness.

Your problem seems to be that you reject the standards, and thus have
LOST all actual meaning of things.

I won't just quote a definition if it isn't important, as the definition
is just available, since I am using the word in the "standard" meaning.

You, on the other hand explicitily reject the notion of standard
definitions, and complain if people apply them to your words. Thus, YOU
have put yourself in the place of needing to provide definition, because
you reject the defaults, so you can't rely on them.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 16:10:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/13/22 9:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point that out.
> > So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!
> >
> > You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define "broken".
> I don't NEED to define broken as I accept the standard definition.
OK great! So then I don't need to define my system because I accept the standard definition!

> >> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and complain when
> >> people interprete you words based on the system THEY chose to be using..
What a lying Dick! I have stated it (over and over). that I am talking about infinitesimals. From which you can (trivially) infer that I am talking about the ONLY system in which they are defined.
And if you didn't know which system that was you could've asked.

And if you had missed me saying that I am talking about 1/ε = ω/1 and the Hyperreal numbers; or if you missed the links to Wikipedia I posted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number )

Quit being a spoiled brat and do some legwork, you lazy twat.

> >> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
> > Look in the mirror.
> >
> > You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!
> I just quoted it,.

Oh, so you could google the definition of "broken" but you couldn't google the definition of *ℝ, infinitesimals or hyperreal numbers ?!?

What a Dick!

> Good that you admit what you are.
I know it's Good. That's why I admit it.

Not so good that you don't admit that you are a Dick.

> Maybe you should try it then.
I don't think it's worth being polite to Dicks who are in denial.

> Note, I start polite with people until the prove to me that they don't
> deserve the treatment.
Which is EXACTLY what I did!

I was polite, then I realised you don't admit (even to yourself) that you are a Dick. So I stopped being polite to self-deceiver.

> Your problem seems to be that you reject the standards, and thus have
> LOST all actual meaning of things.
There is no such thing as the ACTUAL meaning. Meaning is subjective, not objective.

There is your meaning.
There is my meaning.

Don't you know that? Or are you just a dick who tries to impose their meaning onto other people?

> I won't just quote a definition if it isn't important, as the definition
> is just available, since I am using the word in the "standard" meaning.
I am also using my words in their standard meaning.

I guess we are just using different standards?

> You, on the other hand explicitily reject the notion of standard
> definitions, and complain if people apply them to your words.
Bullshit. I don't reject the notion of standard definitions. I am perfectly aware that there are standard definitions - PLURAL.

There is YOUR standard definition.
There is MY standard definition.
There are many standard definitions.

> have put yourself in the place of needing to provide definition, because
> you reject the defaults, so you can't rely on them.
What I DO reject is the notion of a "default" definition!

There are many standards in Mathematics. NONE of them are defaults.

Mathematics is relative!

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 07:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 16:10:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > On 8/13/22 9:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2,
> > > richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point
> > >> that out.
> > > So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!
> > >
> > > You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define
> > > "broken".
> > I don't NEED to define broken as I accept the standard definition.
> OK great! So then I don't need to define my system because I accept
> the standard definition!
>
> > >> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and
> > >> complain when people interprete you words based on the system
> > >> THEY chose to be using.
> What a lying Dick! I have stated it (over and over). that I am
> talking about infinitesimals. From which you can (trivially) infer
> that I am talking about the ONLY system in which they are defined.
> And if you didn't know which system that was you could've asked.
>
> And if you had missed me saying that I am talking about 1/ε = ω/1 and
> the Hyperreal numbers; or if you missed the links to Wikipedia I
> posted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number )
>
> Quit being a spoiled brat and do some legwork, you lazy twat.
>
> > >> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
> > > Look in the mirror.
> > >
> > > You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!
> > I just quoted it,.
>
> Oh, so you could google the definition of "broken" but you couldn't
> google the definition of *ℝ, infinitesimals or hyperreal numbers ?!?
>
> What a Dick!
>
> > Good that you admit what you are.
> I know it's Good. That's why I admit it.
>
> Not so good that you don't admit that you are a Dick.
>
> > Maybe you should try it then.
> I don't think it's worth being polite to Dicks who are in denial.
>
> > Note, I start polite with people until the prove to me that they
> > don't deserve the treatment.
> Which is EXACTLY what I did!
>
> I was polite, then I realised you don't admit (even to yourself) that
> you are a Dick. So I stopped being polite to self-deceiver.
>
> > Your problem seems to be that you reject the standards, and thus
> > have LOST all actual meaning of things.
> There is no such thing as the ACTUAL meaning. Meaning is subjective,
> not objective.
>
> There is your meaning.
> There is my meaning.
>
> Don't you know that? Or are you just a dick who tries to impose their
> meaning onto other people?
>
> > I won't just quote a definition if it isn't important, as the
> > definition is just available, since I am using the word in the
> > "standard" meaning.
> I am also using my words in their standard meaning.
>
> I guess we are just using different standards?
>
> > You, on the other hand explicitily reject the notion of standard
> > definitions, and complain if people apply them to your words.
> Bullshit. I don't reject the notion of standard definitions. I am
> perfectly aware that there are standard definitions - PLURAL.
>
> There is YOUR standard definition.
> There is MY standard definition.
> There are many standard definitions.
>
> > have put yourself in the place of needing to provide definition,
> > because you reject the defaults, so you can't rely on them.
> What I DO reject is the notion of a "default" definition!
>
> There are many standards in Mathematics. NONE of them are defaults.
>
> Mathematics is relative!

Infinitesimals don't actually exist as 1/infinity = 0.

/Flibble

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 23:11:45 UTC+8, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 07:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 16:10:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > > On 8/13/22 9:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2,
> > > > richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point
> > > >> that out.
> > > > So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!
> > > >
> > > > You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define
> > > > "broken".
> > > I don't NEED to define broken as I accept the standard definition.
> > OK great! So then I don't need to define my system because I accept
> > the standard definition!
> >
> > > >> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and
> > > >> complain when people interprete you words based on the system
> > > >> THEY chose to be using.
> > What a lying Dick! I have stated it (over and over). that I am
> > talking about infinitesimals. From which you can (trivially) infer
> > that I am talking about the ONLY system in which they are defined.
> > And if you didn't know which system that was you could've asked.
> >
> > And if you had missed me saying that I am talking about 1/ε = ω/1 and
> > the Hyperreal numbers; or if you missed the links to Wikipedia I
> > posted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number )
> >
> > Quit being a spoiled brat and do some legwork, you lazy twat.
> >
> > > >> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
> > > > Look in the mirror.
> > > >
> > > > You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!
> > > I just quoted it,.
> >
> > Oh, so you could google the definition of "broken" but you couldn't
> > google the definition of *ℝ, infinitesimals or hyperreal numbers ?!?
> >
> > What a Dick!
> >
> > > Good that you admit what you are.
> > I know it's Good. That's why I admit it.
> >
> > Not so good that you don't admit that you are a Dick.
> >
> > > Maybe you should try it then.
> > I don't think it's worth being polite to Dicks who are in denial.
> >
> > > Note, I start polite with people until the prove to me that they
> > > don't deserve the treatment.
> > Which is EXACTLY what I did!
> >
> > I was polite, then I realised you don't admit (even to yourself) that
> > you are a Dick. So I stopped being polite to self-deceiver.
> >
> > > Your problem seems to be that you reject the standards, and thus
> > > have LOST all actual meaning of things.
> > There is no such thing as the ACTUAL meaning. Meaning is subjective,
> > not objective.
> >
> > There is your meaning.
> > There is my meaning.
> >
> > Don't you know that? Or are you just a dick who tries to impose their
> > meaning onto other people?
> >
> > > I won't just quote a definition if it isn't important, as the
> > > definition is just available, since I am using the word in the
> > > "standard" meaning.
> > I am also using my words in their standard meaning.
> >
> > I guess we are just using different standards?
> >
> > > You, on the other hand explicitily reject the notion of standard
> > > definitions, and complain if people apply them to your words.
> > Bullshit. I don't reject the notion of standard definitions. I am
> > perfectly aware that there are standard definitions - PLURAL.
> >
> > There is YOUR standard definition.
> > There is MY standard definition.
> > There are many standard definitions.
> >
> > > have put yourself in the place of needing to provide definition,
> > > because you reject the defaults, so you can't rely on them.
> > What I DO reject is the notion of a "default" definition!
> >
> > There are many standards in Mathematics. NONE of them are defaults.
> >
> > Mathematics is relative!
> Infinitesimals don't actually exist as 1/infinity = 0.
>
> /Flibble

lim(x->c) f(x): x approaching c does not mean |x-c| is infinitesimal?
The same to infinity: lim(x->∞) f(x), what eventually x is?
(not particularly to you, I know you are not good in what you talk about)

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 17:11:45 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 07:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 16:10:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > > On 8/13/22 9:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:48:14 UTC+2,
> > > > richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> You don't follow your own rules, and complain when people point
> > > >> that out.
> > > > So what? I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing!
> > > >
> > > > You don't follow your own rules either. You refuse to define
> > > > "broken".
> > > I don't NEED to define broken as I accept the standard definition.
> > OK great! So then I don't need to define my system because I accept
> > the standard definition!
> >
> > > >> You won't indicate what system you are talking about and
> > > >> complain when people interprete you words based on the system
> > > >> THEY chose to be using.
> > What a lying Dick! I have stated it (over and over). that I am
> > talking about infinitesimals. From which you can (trivially) infer
> > that I am talking about the ONLY system in which they are defined.
> > And if you didn't know which system that was you could've asked.
> >
> > And if you had missed me saying that I am talking about 1/ε = ω/1 and
> > the Hyperreal numbers; or if you missed the links to Wikipedia I
> > posted ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number )
> >
> > Quit being a spoiled brat and do some legwork, you lazy twat.
> >
> > > >> You are just being ANTI-SOCIAL.
> > > > Look in the mirror.
> > > >
> > > > You won't define "broken". That makes you ANTI-SOCIAL!
> > > I just quoted it,.
> >
> > Oh, so you could google the definition of "broken" but you couldn't
> > google the definition of *ℝ, infinitesimals or hyperreal numbers ?!?
> >
> > What a Dick!
> >
> > > Good that you admit what you are.
> > I know it's Good. That's why I admit it.
> >
> > Not so good that you don't admit that you are a Dick.
> >
> > > Maybe you should try it then.
> > I don't think it's worth being polite to Dicks who are in denial.
> >
> > > Note, I start polite with people until the prove to me that they
> > > don't deserve the treatment.
> > Which is EXACTLY what I did!
> >
> > I was polite, then I realised you don't admit (even to yourself) that
> > you are a Dick. So I stopped being polite to self-deceiver.
> >
> > > Your problem seems to be that you reject the standards, and thus
> > > have LOST all actual meaning of things.
> > There is no such thing as the ACTUAL meaning. Meaning is subjective,
> > not objective.
> >
> > There is your meaning.
> > There is my meaning.
> >
> > Don't you know that? Or are you just a dick who tries to impose their
> > meaning onto other people?
> >
> > > I won't just quote a definition if it isn't important, as the
> > > definition is just available, since I am using the word in the
> > > "standard" meaning.
> > I am also using my words in their standard meaning.
> >
> > I guess we are just using different standards?
> >
> > > You, on the other hand explicitily reject the notion of standard
> > > definitions, and complain if people apply them to your words.
> > Bullshit. I don't reject the notion of standard definitions. I am
> > perfectly aware that there are standard definitions - PLURAL.
> >
> > There is YOUR standard definition.
> > There is MY standard definition.
> > There are many standard definitions.
> >
> > > have put yourself in the place of needing to provide definition,
> > > because you reject the defaults, so you can't rely on them.
> > What I DO reject is the notion of a "default" definition!
> >
> > There are many standards in Mathematics. NONE of them are defaults.
> >
> > Mathematics is relative!
> Infinitesimals don't actually exist as 1/infinity = 0.

Yeah but functions, and function inverses exist.

* is an inverse to /

IF x/y = z ( 1/ ∞ = 0 )
THEN z*y = x ( 0 * ∞ = 1)

Skep Dick wrote:
> [snip various bs]
This thread is utterly silly... All of you (Skep Dick, wij, Flibble) are
spouting nonsense. All of you should start to forgot all you idiotic
prejudices and start study math.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:11:25 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> All of you should start to forgot all you idiotic
> prejudices and start study math.
You don't understand a damn thing about Mathematics!

What did the first Mathematician study? Mathematics is invented!

To "study Mathematics" is to study other people's inventions.
You'll learn far more about any particular invention if you bother to ask the question WHY was it invented?
WHY were these particular definitions/axioms/semantic properties chosen?

Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:11:25 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> All of you should start to forgot all you idiotic
>> prejudices and start study math.
> You don't understand a damn thing about Mathematics!
>
> What did the first Mathematician study? Mathematics is invented!
>
> To "study Mathematics" is to study other people's inventions.
> You'll learn far more about any particular invention if you bother to ask the question WHY was it invented?
> WHY were these particular definitions/axioms/semantic properties chosen?

Right, so do that instead of pretending.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:17:50 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:11:25 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> All of you should start to forgot all you idiotic
> >> prejudices and start study math.
> > You don't understand a damn thing about Mathematics!
> >
> > What did the first Mathematician study? Mathematics is invented!
> >
> > To "study Mathematics" is to study other people's inventions.
> > You'll learn far more about any particular invention if you bother to ask the question WHY was it invented?
> > WHY were these particular definitions/axioms/semantic properties chosen?
> Right, so do that instead of pretending.

Do what? Study other people's prejudices?

To what end?

Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:17:50 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:11:25 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> All of you should start to forgot all you idiotic
>>>> prejudices and start study math.
>>> You don't understand a damn thing about Mathematics!
>>>
>>> What did the first Mathematician study? Mathematics is invented!
>>>
>>> To "study Mathematics" is to study other people's inventions.
>>> You'll learn far more about any particular invention if you bother to ask the question WHY was it invented?
>>> WHY were these particular definitions/axioms/semantic properties chosen?
>> Right, so do that instead of pretending.
>
> Do what? Study other people's prejudices?

Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.

> To what end?

To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
valuable what he put out of his a**.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:24:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
> or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.
I have already done that. Which part of "Mathematics is relative" went over your head?

> To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
> valuable what he put out of his a**.
Are you projecting?

My claim that functions have inverses is not my own claim. It's obvious that I consider it valuable.

Which part of me pointing out the inverse of 1/ ∞ = 0 is 0 * ∞ = 1 do you consider to be "pulled out of my ass"?

Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:24:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
>> or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.
> I have already done that. Which part of "Mathematics is relative" went over your head?
>
>> To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
>> valuable what he put out of his a**.
> Are you projecting?
>
> My claim that functions have inverses is not my own claim. It's obvious that I consider it valuable.
>
> Which part of me pointing out the inverse of 1/ ∞ = 0 is 0 * ∞ = 1 do you consider to be "pulled out of my ass"?

"Skep Dick" you've produced so much bullshit (and your fellows too) in
this thread that it would take a life to fix it. This is your duty, not
mine.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:31:12 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:24:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
> >> or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.
> > I have already done that. Which part of "Mathematics is relative" went over your head?
> >
> >> To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
> >> valuable what he put out of his a**.
> > Are you projecting?
> >
> > My claim that functions have inverses is not my own claim. It's obvious that I consider it valuable.
> >
> > Which part of me pointing out the inverse of 1/ ∞ = 0 is 0 * ∞ = 1 do you consider to be "pulled out of my ass"?
> "Skep Dick" you've produced so much bullshit (and your fellows too) in
> this thread that it would take a life to fix it. This is your duty, not
> mine.
So you aren't actually going to be more specific about my "bullshit"?
It would "take a life" to fix it? Are you running for the hyperbole mountain becaue you've figured out that you are actually out of your technical depth?

Which part of my pointing out that functions have inverses ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function ) is bullshit?
Which part of my pointing out that since the Real numbers form a field ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics) ) the function * is an inverse of the function /

I bet you aren't going to address my questions.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:31:12 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:24:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
> >> or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.
> > I have already done that. Which part of "Mathematics is relative" went over your head?
> >
> >> To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
> >> valuable what he put out of his a**.
> > Are you projecting?
> >
> > My claim that functions have inverses is not my own claim. It's obvious that I consider it valuable.
> >
> > Which part of me pointing out the inverse of 1/ ∞ = 0 is 0 * ∞ = 1 do you consider to be "pulled out of my ass"?
> "Skep Dick" you've produced so much bullshit (and your fellows too) in
> this thread that it would take a life to fix it. This is your duty, not
> mine.
Here... Let me help you with the "bullshit" called "Standard inverse functions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function#Standard_inverse_functions

Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:31:12 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:24:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Study what others did and ask yourself why they did it in this
>>>> or that way. Confront divergent points of view, forge your own.
>>> I have already done that. Which part of "Mathematics is relative" went over your head?
>>>
>>>> To stop being a despicable pathetic crank who only considers
>>>> valuable what he put out of his a**.
>>> Are you projecting?
>>>
>>> My claim that functions have inverses is not my own claim. It's obvious that I consider it valuable.
>>>
>>> Which part of me pointing out the inverse of 1/ ∞ = 0 is 0 * ∞ = 1 do you consider to be "pulled out of my ass"?
>> "Skep Dick" you've produced so much bullshit (and your fellows too) in
>> this thread that it would take a life to fix it. This is your duty, not
>> mine.
> So you aren't actually going to be more specific about my "bullshit"?

99% of what you wrote, if not 100%.

> It would "take a life" to fix it? Are you running for the hyperbole mountain becaue you've figured out that you are actually out of your technical depth?
>
> Which part of my pointing out that functions have inverses ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function ) is bullshit?
> Which part of my pointing out that since the Real numbers form a field ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics) ) the function * is an inverse of the function /
>
> I bet you aren't going to address my questions.

Not all functions have inverses. This is trivial.

* is indeed a function of RxR to R (of for any field F, from FxF to F),
so is /, but in no way / matches the definition of an inverse function
of * (it would be a function from F to FxF then).

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:41:55 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Not all functions have inverses. This is trivial.
Who is talking about ALL functions here?

We are talking about division and multiplication. Look! It's in the list of standard inverse functions!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function#Standard_inverse_functions
> * is indeed a function of RxR to R (of for any field F, from FxF to F),
> so is /, but in no way / matches the definition of an inverse function
> of * (it would be a function from F to FxF then).
The type of the function is irrelevant!

If 1/infinity = 0 type-checks then 0* infinity=1 typechecks!