Skep Dick wrote:
> 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

Stating that x -> x - a is the inverse function of x -> x + a (a
triviality btw) is definitely NOT the same as stating that / is the
inverse function of *.

You cranks are soooo sloppy.

http://www.superfrink.net/athenaeum/www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Incompetent-People-Really-Have-No-Clue-Studies-2783375.php
https://www.behavenet.com/narcissistic-personality-disorder

(thx to DVdM: https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html)

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 18:55:19 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Stating that x -> x - a is the inverse function of x -> x + a (a
> triviality btw) is definitely NOT the same as stating that / is the
> inverse function of *.
I didn't start with anything other than my theorems.

Algebraic fields are closed under division and multiplication.
So IF 1, ∞ and 0 are in the domain of / then they are also in the domain of *

You know - because that is what "closed" means.
> You cranks are soooo sloppy.
The irony is epic beyond proportion. Your inability to see your own sloppyness.

You damn crank!

On 13/08/2022 15:25, Skep Dick wrote:
[To Richard:]
> 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.

Not exactly "trivially", as there are [at least] two major
systems in which infinitesimals are defined, the hyperreals and the
surreals [qv]. Of the two, personally I think the surreals are much
more interesting, as they link very directly into games, and there
are [hierarchies of] infinitesimal games that can be constructed in
a finite and playable way that makes sense to non-mathematicians.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bendel

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:21:55 UTC+2, Andy Walker wrote:
> Not exactly "trivially", as there are [at least] two major
> systems
Holy shit! You've reduced the search space to TWO possible members
and you are trying to convince me that the choice between Hyperreals and Surreals is what tripped you up?

Lets pretend (for a second) that you couldn't figure out which system I am talking about (given my use of epsilon and omega) - you could've just asked something like "Are you operating in the Hyperreals or Surreals?"

And then I choose one of the options you've given me and information transfer happens!

Quit being such a pedant.

>in which infinitesimals are defined, the hyperreals and the
> surreals [qv]. Of the two, personally I think the surreals are much
> more interesting, as they link very directly into games, and there
> are [hierarchies of] infinitesimal games that can be constructed in
> a finite and playable way that makes sense to non-mathematicians.
They may be interesting, but there is a whole bunch of useful stuff you can't do with them.

Like calculus.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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)

Why don't you fuck off, cunt? 1/infinity = 0.

/Flibble

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick24@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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)

No. This not correct when using infinity as opposed to a *variable*

1/inf = 0
0*inf = undefined.

/Flibble

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:48:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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)
> No. This not correct when using infinity as opposed to a *variable*
>
> 1/inf = 0
> 0*inf = undefined.

Why don't you fuck off, cunt?

IF divide_by_∞(x) = y is defined for x=1, y=0
THEN multiply_by_∞(y) = x is defined for x=1, y=0

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick24@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:48:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
> > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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)
> > No. This not correct when using infinity as opposed to a *variable*
> >
> > 1/inf = 0
> > 0*inf = undefined.
>
> Why don't you fuck off, cunt?
>
> IF divide_by_∞(x) = y is defined for x=1, y=0
> THEN multiply_by_∞(y) = x is defined for x=1, y=0

Again, stupid fuck, infinity cannot be treated the same as a variable
in mathematical formula as it has special properties as it is not a
number.

Again, stupid fuck:

1/inf = 0
0*inf = undefined.

/Flibble

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:56:46 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:48:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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)
> > > No. This not correct when using infinity as opposed to a *variable*
> > >
> > > 1/inf = 0
> > > 0*inf = undefined.
> >
> > Why don't you fuck off, cunt?
> >
> > IF divide_by_∞(x) = y is defined for x=1, y=0
> > THEN multiply_by_∞(y) = x is defined for x=1, y=0
> Again, stupid fuck, infinity cannot be treated the same as a variable
> in mathematical formula as it has special properties as it is not a
> number.
I am not treating it as a variable, you stupid fuck. I am using it explicitly!

def divide_by_∞(x):
return x/∞

def multiply_by_∞(x):
return x*∞

> Again, stupid fuck:
> 1/inf = 0
> 0*inf = undefined.
> /Flibble

IF divide_by_∞(1) = 0
THEN multiply_by_∞(0) = 1

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick24@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:56:46 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:48:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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)
> > > > No. This not correct when using infinity as opposed to a
> > > > *variable*
> > > >
> > > > 1/inf = 0
> > > > 0*inf = undefined.
> > >
> > > Why don't you fuck off, cunt?
> > >
> > > IF divide_by_∞(x) = y is defined for x=1, y=0
> > > THEN multiply_by_∞(y) = x is defined for x=1, y=0
> > Again, stupid fuck, infinity cannot be treated the same as a
> > variable in mathematical formula as it has special properties as it
> > is not a number.
> I am not treating it as a variable, you stupid fuck. I am using it
> explicitly!
>
> def divide_by_∞(x):
> return x/∞
>
> def multiply_by_∞(x):
> return x*∞
>
> > Again, stupid fuck:
> > 1/inf = 0
> > 0*inf = undefined.
> > /Flibble
>
> IF divide_by_∞(1) = 0
> THEN multiply_by_∞(0) = 1

Click here to read the complete article

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:11:51 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:56:46 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:48:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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)
> > > > > No. This not correct when using infinity as opposed to a
> > > > > *variable*
> > > > >
> > > > > 1/inf = 0
> > > > > 0*inf = undefined.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you fuck off, cunt?
> > > >
> > > > IF divide_by_∞(x) = y is defined for x=1, y=0
> > > > THEN multiply_by_∞(y) = x is defined for x=1, y=0
> > > Again, stupid fuck, infinity cannot be treated the same as a
> > > variable in mathematical formula as it has special properties as it
> > > is not a number.
> > I am not treating it as a variable, you stupid fuck. I am using it
> > explicitly!
> >
> > def divide_by_∞(x):
> > return x/∞
> >
> > def multiply_by_∞(x):
> > return x*∞
> >
> > > Again, stupid fuck:
> > > 1/inf = 0
> > > 0*inf = undefined.
> > > /Flibble
> >
> > IF divide_by_∞(1) = 0
> > THEN multiply_by_∞(0) = 1
> You really are a stupid fuck.
> 1/inf = 0
> 0*inf = undefined
> /Flibble

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick24@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:11:51 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
> > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:56:46 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:48:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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)
> > > > > > No. This not correct when using infinity as opposed to a
> > > > > > *variable*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1/inf = 0
> > > > > > 0*inf = undefined.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why don't you fuck off, cunt?
> > > > >
> > > > > IF divide_by_∞(x) = y is defined for x=1, y=0
> > > > > THEN multiply_by_∞(y) = x is defined for x=1, y=0
> > > > Again, stupid fuck, infinity cannot be treated the same as a
> > > > variable in mathematical formula as it has special properties
> > > > as it is not a number.
> > > I am not treating it as a variable, you stupid fuck. I am using
> > > it explicitly!
> > >
> > > def divide_by_∞(x):
> > > return x/∞
> > >
> > > def multiply_by_∞(x):
> > > return x*∞
> > >
> > > > Again, stupid fuck:
> > > > 1/inf = 0
> > > > 0*inf = undefined.
> > > > /Flibble
> > >
> > > IF divide_by_∞(1) = 0
> > > THEN multiply_by_∞(0) = 1
> > You really are a stupid fuck.
> > 1/inf = 0
> > 0*inf = undefined
> > /Flibble
>
> Which part of IF and THEN is confusing you?

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> 1/infinity = 0.
>
There are different kinds of infinity and what 1/infinity
might be depends on how infinity is approached. I
suggest you take a look at projective geometry.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
"dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >
> > 1/infinity = 0.
> >
> There are different kinds of infinity and what 1/infinity
> might be depends on how infinity is approached. I
> suggest you take a look at projective geometry.

1/infinity = 0.

/Flibble

On 8/13/2022 2:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
> "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>> 1/infinity = 0.
>>>
>> There are different kinds of infinity and what 1/infinity
>> might be depends on how infinity is approached. I
>> suggest you take a look at projective geometry.
>
> 1/infinity = 0.
That was a really quick look and you were able to absorb all of
projective geometry in about a half hour! I'm very impressed. Perhaps
you could afford the same amount of time to absorb some of the more
elementary topics including logic. See you in a couple of hours for a
magnificent display of math learning.
--
Jeff Barnett

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:57:22 -0600
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> wrote:

> On 8/13/2022 2:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
> > "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 11:45:07 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 1/infinity = 0.
> >>>
> >> There are different kinds of infinity and what 1/infinity
> >> might be depends on how infinity is approached. I
> >> suggest you take a look at projective geometry.
> >
> > 1/infinity = 0.
> That was a really quick look and you were able to absorb all of
> projective geometry in about a half hour! I'm very impressed. Perhaps
> you could afford the same amount of time to absorb some of the more
> elementary topics including logic. See you in a couple of hours for a
> magnificent display of math learning.

1/infinity = 0.

/Flibble