On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 06:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 14:56:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 05:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 14:37:21 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:o
> > > x then x also acts as a constant in
> > > > > the equation "1 + x = 6"
> > > > You must have skipped math lessons at school. x is NOT constant
> > > > in "1 + x = 6", it is a VARIABLE.
> > >
> > > I told you that you don't undrstand the difference between bound
> > > and unbound variables, but you didn't even understand what that
> > > means.
> > >
> > > The x in "1 + x = 6" is a variable when x is unbound.
> > > The x in "1 + x = 6" is NOT a variable when x is bound to 5
> > >
> > > Similarly:
> > >
> > > If you give the name x to the symbol ∞;
> > > and you give the name y to the symbol 1
> > >
> > > Then you can write the following expression:
> > >
> > > (x + y = x) ≡ (∞ + 1 = ∞)
> > >
> > > Name binding. You don't understand it.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_binding
> > Now you are confusing/conflating mathematics with programming
> > languages. You really are hopeless.
>
> If I am hopeless then you are way worse. I understand exactly what
> Programming and Mathematics is all about.
>
> In [1]: expression="1 + x == 6" # 1 + x = 6 is a Mathematical
> expression.
>
> In [2]: eval(expression) # The expression cannot be evaluated if x is
> undefined. Obviously!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> NameError Traceback (most recent call
> last) Input In [2], in <cell line: 1>() ----> 1 eval(expression)
> File <string>:1, in <module>
> NameError: name 'x' is not defined
>
> In [3]: x = 5 # As soon as we define x...
>
> In [4]: eval(expression) # the expression evaluates to True (as
> expected) Out[4]: True
>
> In [5]: x = 9 # ... and with x=9
>
> In [6]: eval(expression) # it evaluates to False (as expected)
> Out[6]: False
>

Again you are conflating mathematics with programming languages which
is a mistake: they are different domains.

/Flibble

On 8/13/22 8:48 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 14:37:21 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:o x then x also acts as a constant in
>>> the equation "1 + x = 6"
>> You must have skipped math lessons at school. x is NOT constant in "1 +
>> x = 6", it is a VARIABLE.
>
> I told you that you don't undrstand the difference between bound and unbound variables, but you didn't even understand what that means.
>
> The x in "1 + x = 6" is a variable when x is unbound.
> The x in "1 + x = 6" is NOT a variable when x is bound to 5
>
> Similarly:
>
> If you give the name x to the symbol ∞;
> and you give the name y to the symbol 1
>
> Then you can write the following expression:
>
> (x + y = x) ≡ (∞ + 1 = ∞)
>
> Name binding. You don't understand it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_binding
>

Again, you are running into the problem that you refuse to begin by
defining your system, and then get upsef because people assume a
different system then the one you had in you mind.

That communication fault is in YOUR lack of communication essential.

You have said that people get to choose how they want to interprete things.

Therefore, for your statements, they also have that option, even if it
isn't what you meant by them.

This is the problem with your "system", it is just broken.

Conventions matter, and the breaker of the conventions is the
anti-social person.

They are the one being a "Dick".

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:11:21 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/13/22 8:48 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 14:37:21 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:o x then x also acts as a constant in
> >>> the equation "1 + x = 6"
> >> You must have skipped math lessons at school. x is NOT constant in "1 +
> >> x = 6", it is a VARIABLE.
> >
> > I told you that you don't undrstand the difference between bound and unbound variables, but you didn't even understand what that means.
> >
> > The x in "1 + x = 6" is a variable when x is unbound.
> > The x in "1 + x = 6" is NOT a variable when x is bound to 5
> >
> > Similarly:
> >
> > If you give the name x to the symbol ∞;
> > and you give the name y to the symbol 1
> >
> > Then you can write the following expression:
> >
> > (x + y = x) ≡ (∞ + 1 = ∞)
> >
> > Name binding. You don't understand it.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_binding
> >
> Again, you are running into the problem that you refuse to begin by
> defining your system, and then get upsef because people assume a
> different system then the one you had in you mind.
Where do you see me "getting upset"?

You seep to be the one being upset. Specifically - you seem very upset that I refuse to define my system.
Indeed, I refuse. And if that upsets you - I shall refuse to define my system even more sternly.

The "define it" game is fucking stupid. Define the color red.

> That communication fault is in YOUR lack of communication essential.
No, it isn't. Communication is more than fucking definitions.

> You have said that people get to choose how they want to interprete things.
Of course they do!

> Therefore, for your statements, they also have that option, even if it
> isn't what you meant by them.
Of course you do!

And if you misinterpret my statements, then I might even correct you. Because it is very rude to misinterpret people.

> This is the problem with your "system", it is just broken.
OK, if you think my system is broken then lets use your system instead.

Define "broken".

> Conventions matter, and the breaker of the conventions is the
> anti-social person.
OK. Stop being anti-social.

Define "broken".

> They are the one being a "Dick".
The difference is I am outright honest about the fact that I am being a Dick.

I wish you were this honest (up front) about your being unable to define "broken" while forcing me to define my own system.

I wish you were as honest as I am about YOU being a dick!

On 8/13/22 9:27 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:11:21 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/13/22 8:48 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 14:37:21 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:o x then x also acts as a constant in
>>>>> the equation "1 + x = 6"
>>>> You must have skipped math lessons at school. x is NOT constant in "1 +
>>>> x = 6", it is a VARIABLE.
>>>
>>> I told you that you don't undrstand the difference between bound and unbound variables, but you didn't even understand what that means.
>>>
>>> The x in "1 + x = 6" is a variable when x is unbound.
>>> The x in "1 + x = 6" is NOT a variable when x is bound to 5
>>>
>>> Similarly:
>>>
>>> If you give the name x to the symbol ∞;
>>> and you give the name y to the symbol 1
>>>
>>> Then you can write the following expression:
>>>
>>> (x + y = x) ≡ (∞ + 1 = ∞)
>>>
>>> Name binding. You don't understand it.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_binding
>>>
>> Again, you are running into the problem that you refuse to begin by
>> defining your system, and then get upsef because people assume a
>> different system then the one you had in you mind.
> Where do you see me "getting upset"?
>
> You seep to be the one being upset. Specifically - you seem very upset that I refuse to define my system.
> Indeed, I refuse. And if that upsets you - I shall refuse to define my system even more sternly.

And thus make everything you say WORTHLESS, and thus your whole being too.

Go ahead, waste it and see if I care.

>
> The "define it" game is fucking stupid. Define the color red.
>
>> That communication fault is in YOUR lack of communication essential.
> No, it isn't. Communication is more than fucking definitions.

The ESSENCE of Communication is getting information from one side to
another.

THat REQUIRES common definition.

You are NOT "Communicating", you are mindlessly ranting.

>
>> You have said that people get to choose how they want to interprete things.
> Of course they do!
>
>> Therefore, for your statements, they also have that option, even if it
>> isn't what you meant by them.
> Of course you do!
>
> And if you misinterpret my statements, then I might even correct you. Because it is very rude to misinterpret people.
>
>> This is the problem with your "system", it is just broken.
> OK, if you think my system is broken then lets use your system instead.
>
> Define "broken".
>
>> Conventions matter, and the breaker of the conventions is the
>> anti-social person.
> OK. Stop being anti-social.
>
> Define "broken".
>
>> They are the one being a "Dick".
> The difference is I am outright honest about the fact that I am being a Dick.
>
> I wish you were this honest (up front) about your being unable to define "broken" while forcing me to define my own system.
>
> I wish you were as honest as I am about YOU being a dick!

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:50:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> The ESSENCE of Communication is getting information from one side to
> another.
You don't even know what information is. You just know the definition.

You have absolutely no idea how to PRACTICE those words.

> THat REQUIRES common definition.
No, it doesn't.

> You are NOT "Communicating", you are mindlessly ranting.
Translation: your parser/lexer is broken.

But you can't even tell me what it is that you don't understand about my words!

> > OK, if you think my system is broken then lets use your system instead.
> >
> > Define "broken".

So you continue refusing to define "broken" ? So much for your rules.

You know what I think? I think you just want to control the conversation.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:50:46 UTC+8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/13/22 9:27 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:11:21 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 8/13/22 8:48 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 14:37:21 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:o x then x also acts as a constant in
> >>>>> the equation "1 + x = 6"
> >>>> You must have skipped math lessons at school. x is NOT constant in "1 +
> >>>> x = 6", it is a VARIABLE.
> >>>
> >>> I told you that you don't undrstand the difference between bound and unbound variables, but you didn't even understand what that means.
> >>>
> >>> The x in "1 + x = 6" is a variable when x is unbound.
> >>> The x in "1 + x = 6" is NOT a variable when x is bound to 5
> >>>
> >>> Similarly:
> >>>
> >>> If you give the name x to the symbol ∞;
> >>> and you give the name y to the symbol 1
> >>>
> >>> Then you can write the following expression:
> >>>
> >>> (x + y = x) ≡ (∞ + 1 = ∞)
> >>>
> >>> Name binding. You don't understand it.
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_binding
> >>>
> >> Again, you are running into the problem that you refuse to begin by
> >> defining your system, and then get upsef because people assume a
> >> different system then the one you had in you mind.
> > Where do you see me "getting upset"?
> >
> > You seep to be the one being upset. Specifically - you seem very upset that I refuse to define my system.
> > Indeed, I refuse. And if that upsets you - I shall refuse to define my system even more sternly.
> And thus make everything you say WORTHLESS, and thus your whole being too..
>
> Go ahead, waste it and see if I care.
> >
> > The "define it" game is fucking stupid. Define the color red.
> >
> >> That communication fault is in YOUR lack of communication essential.
> > No, it isn't. Communication is more than fucking definitions.
> The ESSENCE of Communication is getting information from one side to
> another.
>
> THat REQUIRES common definition.
>
> You are NOT "Communicating", you are mindlessly ranting.
> >
> >> You have said that people get to choose how they want to interprete things.
> > Of course they do!
> >
> >> Therefore, for your statements, they also have that option, even if it
> >> isn't what you meant by them.
> > Of course you do!
> >
> > And if you misinterpret my statements, then I might even correct you. Because it is very rude to misinterpret people.
> >
> >> This is the problem with your "system", it is just broken.
> > OK, if you think my system is broken then lets use your system instead.
> >
> > Define "broken".
> >
> >> Conventions matter, and the breaker of the conventions is the
> >> anti-social person.
> > OK. Stop being anti-social.
> >
> > Define "broken".
> >
> >> They are the one being a "Dick".
> > The difference is I am outright honest about the fact that I am being a Dick.
> >
> > I wish you were this honest (up front) about your being unable to define "broken" while forcing me to define my own system.
> >
> > I wish you were as honest as I am about YOU being a dick!

Definition man. People use math. (R) to solve real problems, not really talking
about your definition (we are not for exam.). Your real number system is
actually Pythagorean real and you don't really understand your math, either..
You use diagonal of square all the time and believe it is a ratio number (Pythagorean's real number)
and asking everyone has to talk your belief, or you call it not communication.
(In the end, you would probably say all the debates are non-topic, I guess. You just don't like to see what you
don't like to see. Information roughly equals to surprise, doesn't it.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 23:37:01 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:50:46 UTC+8, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 8/13/22 9:27 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 15:11:21 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On 8/13/22 8:48 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 14:37:21 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:o x then x also acts as a constant in
> > >>>>> the equation "1 + x = 6"
> > >>>> You must have skipped math lessons at school. x is NOT constant in "1 +
> > >>>> x = 6", it is a VARIABLE.
> > >>>
> > >>> I told you that you don't undrstand the difference between bound and unbound variables, but you didn't even understand what that means.
> > >>>
> > >>> The x in "1 + x = 6" is a variable when x is unbound.
> > >>> The x in "1 + x = 6" is NOT a variable when x is bound to 5
> > >>>
> > >>> Similarly:
> > >>>
> > >>> If you give the name x to the symbol ∞;
> > >>> and you give the name y to the symbol 1
> > >>>
> > >>> Then you can write the following expression:
> > >>>
> > >>> (x + y = x) ≡ (∞ + 1 = ∞)
> > >>>
> > >>> Name binding. You don't understand it.
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_binding
> > >>>
> > >> Again, you are running into the problem that you refuse to begin by
> > >> defining your system, and then get upsef because people assume a
> > >> different system then the one you had in you mind.
> > > Where do you see me "getting upset"?
> > >
> > > You seep to be the one being upset. Specifically - you seem very upset that I refuse to define my system.
> > > Indeed, I refuse. And if that upsets you - I shall refuse to define my system even more sternly.
> > And thus make everything you say WORTHLESS, and thus your whole being too.
> >
> > Go ahead, waste it and see if I care.
> > >
> > > The "define it" game is fucking stupid. Define the color red.
> > >
> > >> That communication fault is in YOUR lack of communication essential.
> > > No, it isn't. Communication is more than fucking definitions.
> > The ESSENCE of Communication is getting information from one side to
> > another.
> >
> > THat REQUIRES common definition.
> >
> > You are NOT "Communicating", you are mindlessly ranting.
> > >
> > >> You have said that people get to choose how they want to interprete things.
> > > Of course they do!
> > >
> > >> Therefore, for your statements, they also have that option, even if it
> > >> isn't what you meant by them.
> > > Of course you do!
> > >
> > > And if you misinterpret my statements, then I might even correct you. Because it is very rude to misinterpret people.
> > >
> > >> This is the problem with your "system", it is just broken.
> > > OK, if you think my system is broken then lets use your system instead.
> > >
> > > Define "broken".
> > >
> > >> Conventions matter, and the breaker of the conventions is the
> > >> anti-social person.
> > > OK. Stop being anti-social.
> > >
> > > Define "broken".
> > >
> > >> They are the one being a "Dick".
> > > The difference is I am outright honest about the fact that I am being a Dick.
> > >
> > > I wish you were this honest (up front) about your being unable to define "broken" while forcing me to define my own system.
> > >
> > > I wish you were as honest as I am about YOU being a dick!
> Definition man. People use math. (R) to solve real problems, not really talking
> about your definition (we are not for exam.). Your real number system is
> actually Pythagorean real and you don't really understand your math, either.
> You use diagonal of square all the time and believe it is a ratio number (Pythagorean's real number)
> and asking everyone has to talk your belief, or you call it not communication.
> (In the end, you would probably say all the debates are non-topic, I guess. You just don't like to see what you
> don't like to see. Information roughly equals to surprise, doesn't it.

Adding materials (at least for me to book mark easier)
-----------
| | Infinitesimals don't actually exist as 1/infinity = 0.
|

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?

(and "1/infinity" is not Pythagorean's number, they should not use it)