On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:46:45 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 08:16:18 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > At this point I am not really sure formalization will help us out of
> > > this mess...
> > It's your mess. I am quite content with the conventional interpretation
> > of 0.999... You, I think, don't want to agree that 0.999... = 1 but you
> > can't say anything useful about what else it might mean. All you've
> > done in fire questions at me as if I should be able to tell you what you
> > mean.
> >
> > --
> > Ben.
> As said. 0.999... or "Repeating decimal" suffer from pattern interpretation problems:
> (1) 0.999...= 0.(9) = 0.(99)= 0.(999)
> (2) 0.999...= 0.((9)(99)) // Andy Walker provided such interpretation
> (3) 1-1/∞= 0.999...
> 1-2/∞= 0.999...
> 1-3/2^∞= 0.999...
> 1-4/10^∞= 0.999...
> (4) 0.999...= 0.9 + 0.999 + 0.99 + 0.9999 +...
> = 0.4+0.5 + 0.444+0.555 +...
> = Σ(n=1,∞) f(n) // this f(n) can be nearly anything and yields different result.
>
> See the snippet [Infinite series] in previous post about re-grouping/
> re-arrange issues of infinite series.
> (5) More interpretations are possible
>
> Which one does "0.999..." really mean? Note that these expressions eventually
> will be translated to procedure/operation of natural numbers and then, physical
> entities.
>
> As to possible point of current discussion, a consensus that "Repeating decimal
> does not specify a unique entity" should be established.
> However, such expressions "1-1/∞" or "1-1/10^∞" or "∑(n=1,∞) 9/10^n" can specify
> a unique entity, because elements in these expressions can be defined.
>
> As to whether "1-1/2^∞" and "1-1/10^∞" are equal or not, from the snippet:
> Ex3: "0.999..." usual 'repeating decimal' cannot denote a unique number.
> Let A= Σ(n=1,∞) 1/2^n = 0.999...
> B= Σ(n=1,∞) 9/10^n = 0.999...
>
> Assume A=B
> <=> 1-1/2^∞= 1-1/10^∞ // converted from the formula of geometric series
> <=> 1/2^∞= 1/10^∞
> <=> 5^∞=1
> <=> false
>
> Conclusion: A and B denote different numbers. (a physical device computing
> the truth value of A=B is a deterministic process, yields false, no way 'equal').

--- Correction:
(4) 0.999...= 0.9 + 0.09+ 0.009 + 0.0009+ ...
= 0.09 + 0.9 + 0.0009 + 0.009+ ...
= 0.04+0.05 + 0.4+0.5+ 0.0004+0.0005+ 0.004+0.005+....
= 0.44+0.55 + 0.0044+0.0055+...
= Σ(n=1,∞) f(n) // this f(n) can be nearly anything and yields different result.

See the snippet [Infinite series] in previous post about re-grouping/re-arrange
issues of infinite series.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 03:12:28 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 02:38:23 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 02:16:18 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> >> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > At this point I am not really sure formalization will help us out of
> >> >> > this mess...
> >> >> It's your mess. I am quite content with the conventional interpretation
> >> >> of 0.999... You, I think, don't want to agree that 0.999... = 1 but you
> >> >> can't say anything useful about what else it might mean. All you've
> >> >> done in fire questions at me as if I should be able to tell you what you
> >> >> mean.
> >> >
> >> > What is it that you don't understand about expressions of the form "x = y".
> >> >
> >> > In the most pedestrian understanding (Clasical logic) such expressions
> >> > could mean true; or they could mean false.
> >> >
> >> > And so it goes for "0.999... = 1". It could mean true; or it could
> >> > mean false.
> >> >
> >> > Obviously, I've made it clear that when I say "0.999... = 1" I mean
> >> > false and when I say "0.999... + ε = 1" I mean true.
> >> >
> >> > Where have I ever asked you to tell me what I mean? I am asking you to
> >> > tell me what you mean by ""0.999... = 1" !
> >> Maybe wait until sober before posting?
> >
> > I am pretty sure that when I sober up I'll ask you exactly the same thing...
> >
> > Probably because I see "0.999... = 1" as a proposition with an
> > unspecified semantic value and you don't.
> Maybe tomorrow you will remember why I declined to explain this entirely
> conventional piece of notation to you.
Well, it's tomorrow, and my drunk-questions were spot on - I have no idea what was confusing you.
I am only asking the question precisely because I am aware of at least two conventions. Maybe you aren't as well informed as I am?

Perhaps what you were trying to say all along is that your convention is more conventional? OK, have it! But you still havent told me WHICH convention (that is more conventional) is YOUR convention.

Are you talking about the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥ ?

wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 08:16:18 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > At this point I am not really sure formalization will help us out of
>> > this mess...
>> It's your mess. I am quite content with the conventional interpretation
>> of 0.999... You, I think, don't want to agree that 0.999... = 1 but you
>> can't say anything useful about what else it might mean. All you've
>> done in fire questions at me as if I should be able to tell you what you
>> mean.
>>
>
> As said. 0.999... or "Repeating decimal" suffer from pattern
> interpretation problems:

Only here. The meaning of ... after digits is almost universally
agreed. So much so that other notations should be used for any other
meaning.

> (1) 0.999...= 0.(9) = 0.(99)= 0.(999)

Yes.

> (2) 0.999...= 0.((9)(99)) // Andy Walker provided such
> interpretation

No. Just write 0.((9)(99)) if that's what you mean (and explain the
concept either in terms of games or order relations).

> (3) 1-1/∞= 0.999...

Introducing a new number called ∞ by which one can divide other numbers
does not produce any clarity. It produces even more ambiguity. What I
would like to see from a "alterntivist" is clarity. If that requires a
new number, so be it, but the set of numbers needs to be defined along
with the operations on those.

> 1-2/∞= 0.999...
> 1-3/2^∞= 0.999...
> 1-4/10^∞= 0.999...

Without further explanation I will conclude that n/∞ = 0 and that n/k^∞
= 0. That does not sound very useful, but what else can I conclude from
your lack of explanation?

| (4) 0.999...= 0.9 + 0.09+ 0.009 + 0.0009+ ...
| = 0.09 + 0.9 + 0.0009 + 0.009+ ...
| = 0.04+0.05 + 0.4+0.5+ 0.0004+0.0005+ 0.004+0.005+....
| = 0.44+0.55 + 0.0044+0.0055+...

= 1.

| = Σ(n=1,∞) f(n) // this f(n) can be nearly anything and yields
| different result.
| | See the snippet [Infinite series] in previous post about
| re-grouping/re-arrange issues of infinite series.

No. See any good textbook on how to calculate these limits.

> (5) More interpretations are possible

*Sigh* I'd like to see just /one/ alternative interpretation. All
anyone posts is bad algebra and one-line hints. Do the work. Define
your extension to the reals and explain how algebra is to be done in
this new set.

> Which one does "0.999..." really mean?

0.999... means lim(k->oo) Sum(k=1,n) 9/10^k. That limit is 1. It will
mean that even if you stop being lazy and define what you want it to
mean. All you will have done is add confusion. You should define (for
example) 0.999___ and then you can prove that 0.999... =/= 0.999___.

> Note that these expressions eventually will be translated to
> procedure/operation of natural numbers and then, physical entities.
>
> As to possible point of current discussion, a consensus that
> "Repeating decimal does not specify a unique entity" should be
> established.

You are not a dictator. You can't take away the meaning I (and vast
numbers of boring old mathematicians) give to the symbols 0.999... Even
when your great work is published it will (for a century or so at least)
still mean lim(k->oo) Sum(k=1,n) 9/10^k.

You can introduce ambiguity by not using the symbols like the rest of
us, or you can be a proper mathematician and introduce an unambiguous
way to say what you want. Of course, not only is that real work, you
also have the up-hill struggle to persuade anyone to be interested.

> However, such expressions "1-1/∞" or "1-1/10^∞" or
> "∑(n=1,∞) 9/10^n" can specify a unique entity, because elements in
> these expressions can be defined.

If only! Yes they /can/ be defined. I just wish someone would get off
their... er, I mean, stop prevaricating and do the work to define them
and their operations.

> As to whether "1-1/2^∞" and "1-1/10^∞" are equal or not, from the snippet:
> Ex3: "0.999..." usual 'repeating decimal' cannot denote a unique number.
> Let A= Σ(n=1,∞) 1/2^n = 0.999...
> B= Σ(n=1,∞) 9/10^n = 0.999...
>
> Assume A=B

Or, more simply, prove that A = B = 1.

> <=> 1-1/2^∞= 1-1/10^∞ // converted from the formula of geometric series
> <=> 1/2^∞= 1/10^∞
> <=> 5^∞=1
> <=> false

Not with the conventional meanings of any of these symbols.

> Conclusion: A and B denote different numbers. (a physical device
> computing the truth value of A=B is a deterministic process, yields
> false, no way 'equal').

Conclusion: you don't know what the symbols mean and you don't dare
define new ones with the meaning you;d like them to have.

--
Ben.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 12:33:52 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Conclusion: you don't know what the symbols mean and you don't dare
> define new ones with the meaning you;d like them to have.
Yeeep. Drunk me was 100% right. We have a priest/zealot in the house!

An ardent believer in denotational semantics. The sort of typee who thinks symbols like an upside-down A's, backwards Es and "0" denote something meaningful.
A hypocrite who demands "clarity", yet cannot even begin to tell you what "clarity" denotes.

Nor could he even tell you what ∞ and "->" denote in the expression lim(k -> ∞)

On 8/26/22 1:46 AM, wij wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 08:16:18 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> At this point I am not really sure formalization will help us out of
>>> this mess...
>> It's your mess. I am quite content with the conventional interpretation
>> of 0.999... You, I think, don't want to agree that 0.999... = 1 but you
>> can't say anything useful about what else it might mean. All you've
>> done in fire questions at me as if I should be able to tell you what you
>> mean.
>>
>> --
>> Ben.
>
> As said. 0.999... or "Repeating decimal" suffer from pattern interpretation problems:
> (1) 0.999...= 0.(9) = 0.(99)= 0.(999)
> (2) 0.999...= 0.((9)(99)) // Andy Walker provided such interpretation
> (3) 1-1/∞= 0.999...
> 1-2/∞= 0.999...
> 1-3/2^∞= 0.999...
> 1-4/10^∞= 0.999...
> (4) 0.999...= 0.9 + 0.999 + 0.99 + 0.9999 +...
> = 0.4+0.5 + 0.444+0.555 +...
> = Σ(n=1,∞) f(n) // this f(n) can be nearly anything and yields different result.
>
> See the snippet [Infinite series] in previous post about re-grouping/
> re-arrange issues of infinite series.
> (5) More interpretations are possible
>
> Which one does "0.999..." really mean? Note that these expressions eventually
> will be translated to procedure/operation of natural numbers and then, physical
> entities.
>
> As to possible point of current discussion, a consensus that "Repeating decimal
> does not specify a unique entity" should be established.
> However, such expressions "1-1/∞" or "1-1/10^∞" or "∑(n=1,∞) 9/10^n" can specify
> a unique entity, because elements in these expressions can be defined.
>
> As to whether "1-1/2^∞" and "1-1/10^∞" are equal or not, from the snippet:
> Ex3: "0.999..." usual 'repeating decimal' cannot denote a unique number.
> Let A= Σ(n=1,∞) 1/2^n = 0.999...
> B= Σ(n=1,∞) 9/10^n = 0.999...
>
> Assume A=B
> <=> 1-1/2^∞= 1-1/10^∞ // converted from the formula of geometric series
> <=> 1/2^∞= 1/10^∞
> <=> 5^∞=1
> <=> false
>
> Conclusion: A and B denote different numbers. (a physical device computing
> the truth value of A=B is a deterministic process, yields false, no way 'equal').
>

The problem is that you aren't clear on what domain you are working in.

If it is "The Reals" then 0.999... IS Equal to 1 and your numbers in (3)
just don't exist, because ∞ is NOT a "Number" that can participate in
Arithmetic.

If you aren't working in the domain of the Reals, you need to state what
domain you ARE in, and then look to see what rules are applicable in the
domain, and make sure you stay within those rules.

Yes, if you are trying to work in a system based on all the properties
of The Reals, but lets assume that ∞ can be added as an ordinary number,
you DO get all those sorts of problems, becuase that sort of system just
doesn't work.

On 8/26/22 7:11 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 12:33:52 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Conclusion: you don't know what the symbols mean and you don't dare
>> define new ones with the meaning you;d like them to have.
> Yeeep. Drunk me was 100% right. We have a priest/zealot in the house!
>
> An ardent believer in denotational semantics. The sort of typee who thinks symbols like an upside-down A's, backwards Es and "0" denote something meaningful.
> A hypocrite who demands "clarity", yet cannot even begin to tell you what "clarity" denotes.
>
> Nor could he even tell you what ∞ and "->" denote in the expression lim(k -> ∞)
>
>

Gee, I explained that a long time ago, it just didn't fit your concept
of how to reason. In part, because you need the FULL expression of the
lim, not just a piece. Just the part lim (x -> ∞) doesn't have complete
meaning by itself.

lim(x -> ∞) f(x) means

What value L (if it exists) statisfies the rule that for all e > 0 we
can find a X such that for all x > X we have that | f(x) - L | < e.

It can be noted that this definition is slightly different (but related)
to the definition of lim(x -> y) f(x). when y is a finite number.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:15:30 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> The problem is that you aren't clear on what domain you are working in.
Shit-for-brains fucking idiot.

What domain are YOU working in when you SAY things like "lim(x -> ∞) f(x)". What is the domain of the lim()?!?

> If you aren't working in the domain of the Reals, you need to state what
> domain you ARE in, and then look to see what rules are applicable in the
> domain, and make sure you stay within those rules.
OK! Go ahead!

STATE YOUR DOMAIN.

What is the domain of the lim()?!?
> Yes, if you are trying to work in a system based on all the properties
> of The Reals, but lets assume that ∞ can be added as an ordinary number,
> you DO get all those sorts of problems, becuase that sort of system just
> doesn't work.
Oh, so it "doesn't work" when I pass ∞ as a parameter to +(x, ∞),
but then it matically works when you pass ∞ as a parameeter to lim(x -> ∞)

Fucking hypocrite!

On 8/26/22 5:35 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 03:12:28 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 02:38:23 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 02:16:18 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this point I am not really sure formalization will help us out of
>>>>>>> this mess...
>>>>>> It's your mess. I am quite content with the conventional interpretation
>>>>>> of 0.999... You, I think, don't want to agree that 0.999... = 1 but you
>>>>>> can't say anything useful about what else it might mean. All you've
>>>>>> done in fire questions at me as if I should be able to tell you what you
>>>>>> mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it that you don't understand about expressions of the form "x = y".
>>>>>
>>>>> In the most pedestrian understanding (Clasical logic) such expressions
>>>>> could mean true; or they could mean false.
>>>>>
>>>>> And so it goes for "0.999... = 1". It could mean true; or it could
>>>>> mean false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, I've made it clear that when I say "0.999... = 1" I mean
>>>>> false and when I say "0.999... + ε = 1" I mean true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where have I ever asked you to tell me what I mean? I am asking you to
>>>>> tell me what you mean by ""0.999... = 1" !
>>>> Maybe wait until sober before posting?
>>>
>>> I am pretty sure that when I sober up I'll ask you exactly the same thing...
>>>
>>> Probably because I see "0.999... = 1" as a proposition with an
>>> unspecified semantic value and you don't.
>> Maybe tomorrow you will remember why I declined to explain this entirely
>> conventional piece of notation to you.
> Well, it's tomorrow, and my drunk-questions were spot on - I have no idea what was confusing you.
>
> I am only asking the question precisely because I am aware of at least two conventions. Maybe you aren't as well informed as I am?
>
> Perhaps what you were trying to say all along is that your convention is more conventional? OK, have it! But you still havent told me WHICH convention (that is more conventional) is YOUR convention.
>
> Are you talking about the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥ ?
>

It depends on which system we are talking about, which you don't seem to
know, or care about, so you don't know anything useful.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:22:27 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Gee, I explained that a long time ago, it just didn't fit your concept
> of how to reason. In part, because you need the FULL expression of the
> lim, not just a piece. Just the part lim (x -> ∞) doesn't have complete
> meaning by itself.
I am not asking for the complete meaning. I am asking for the incomplete meaning.

You underestand partial application, yes?

> lim(x -> ∞) f(x) means
>
> What value L (if it exists) statisfies the rule that for all e > 0 we
> can find a X such that for all x > X we have that | f(x) - L | < e.
What the fuck are "e", "L" and "X" ?!? Where did they come from?!?!

> It can be noted that this definition is slightly different (but related)
> to the definition of lim(x -> y) f(x). when y is a finite number.
Oh, I see!!!! So lim(x -> y) f(x) is polymorphic then? And it deepends on the TYPE of y?

Could you please show me the logic for the dispatcher? In particular - could you show me the implementation for the decider which determines whether y is a finite; or infinite type?

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:25:11 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Are you talking about the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥ ?
> >
> It depends on which system we are talking about, which you don't seem to
> know, or care about, so you don't know anything useful.
Fucking shit-for-brains idiot!

That is PRECISELY what I am asking with the QUESTION: (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥

Are you so incompetent that you are even unable to identify your own damn axiom?!?

On 8/26/22 7:32 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:22:27 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Gee, I explained that a long time ago, it just didn't fit your concept
>> of how to reason. In part, because you need the FULL expression of the
>> lim, not just a piece. Just the part lim (x -> ∞) doesn't have complete
>> meaning by itself.
> I am not asking for the complete meaning. I am asking for the incomplete meaning.
>
> You underestand partial application, yes?
>
>> lim(x -> ∞) f(x) means
>>
>> What value L (if it exists) statisfies the rule that for all e > 0 we
>> can find a X such that for all x > X we have that | f(x) - L | < e.
> What the fuck are "e", "L" and "X" ?!? Where did they come from?!?!
>
>> It can be noted that this definition is slightly different (but related)
>> to the definition of lim(x -> y) f(x). when y is a finite number.
> Oh, I see!!!! So lim(x -> y) f(x) is polymorphic then? And it deepends on the TYPE of y?
>
> Could you please show me the logic for the dispatcher? In particular - could you show me the implementation for the decider which determines whether y is a finite; or infinite type?

Who says I use a "decider" to determine that.

This seems to be YOUR problem of trying to reduce everything to a
'computation', even when they aren't defined that way.

That becomes YOUR task to show you can do it that way.

Maybe that it a key flaw in your thought system.

On 8/26/22 7:23 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:15:30 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The problem is that you aren't clear on what domain you are working in.
> Shit-for-brains fucking idiot.
>
> What domain are YOU working in when you SAY things like "lim(x -> ∞) f(x)". What is the domain of the lim()?!?
>
>
>> If you aren't working in the domain of the Reals, you need to state what
>> domain you ARE in, and then look to see what rules are applicable in the
>> domain, and make sure you stay within those rules.
> OK! Go ahead!
>
> STATE YOUR DOMAIN.
>
> What is the domain of the lim()?!?
>
>> Yes, if you are trying to work in a system based on all the properties
>> of The Reals, but lets assume that ∞ can be added as an ordinary number,
>> you DO get all those sorts of problems, becuase that sort of system just
>> doesn't work.
> Oh, so it "doesn't work" when I pass ∞ as a parameter to +(x, ∞),
> but then it matically works when you pass ∞ as a parameeter to lim(x -> ∞)
>
> Fucking hypocrite!
>

What Hypocracy?

∞ just isn't a full member of The Real Number System, with only limited
application.

If you don't acknowledge the limits of what your definitions can handle,
you break your system.

I think this just shows that you don't understand how broken you system
might be.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:38:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Who says I use a "decider" to determine that.
Oh, OK! So you are openly admitting that you don't have a mechanism for deciding?

So then how do you handle dispatch?

> This seems to be YOUR problem of trying to reduce everything to a
> 'computation', even when they aren't defined that way.
Shit-for-brains fucking idiot. This has nothing to do with reduction or computation.

Either YOU (not your computer) can determine that an object is infinite, or you can't. If you can - tell me how!

> That becomes YOUR task to show you can do it that way.
That seems a bit like burden tennis, don't you think?

YOU are alraedy doing it. YOU are admitting to DOING it.

Tell us how.

> Maybe that it a key flaw in your thought system.
My system?!? What system?

I am just a debugger...

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:41:32 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> ∞ just isn't a full member of The Real Number System, with only limited
> application.
😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

So it's a non-full member of The Real Number System then. Is that like being half-pregnant?

> If you don't acknowledge the limits of what your definitions can handle,
> you break your system.
Yes, I know!

So what are the limits of what lim(x->y)f(x) can handle?!?

> I think this just shows that you don't understand how broken you system
> might be.
I think you don't understand that my system is the debugger of YOUR broken system.

On 8/26/22 7:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:25:11 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Are you talking about the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥ ?
>>>
>> It depends on which system we are talking about, which you don't seem to
>> know, or care about, so you don't know anything useful.
> Fucking shit-for-brains idiot!
>
> That is PRECISELY what I am asking with the QUESTION: (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥
>
> Are you so incompetent that you are even unable to identify your own damn axiom?!?
>

So, if you don't know the system your working in, how do you know what
to do?

This is precisely the problem that wij is having, they want to be
working in The Real Number System, but don't want to need to follow the
rules of it, so get non-sense.

Your question is putting the cart before the horse, we don't DEFINIE
whether 0.999... == 1 or not, that comes out of the actual definitions
we use for the more basic things.

Remember, the axioms that are available come out of the choice of the
system we choose.

Yes, you create a system by choosing the axioms, but once created, that
choice is fixed for that system.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:53:49 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/26/22 7:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:25:11 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Are you talking about the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥ ?
> >>>
> >> It depends on which system we are talking about, which you don't seem to
> >> know, or care about, so you don't know anything useful.
> > Fucking shit-for-brains idiot!
> >
> > That is PRECISELY what I am asking with the QUESTION: (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥
> >
> > Are you so incompetent that you are even unable to identify your own damn axiom?!?
> >
> So, if you don't know the system your working in, how do you know what
> to do?
Well if you "do know the systeme you are working in" why can't you tell me its rules?

> This is precisely the problem that wij is having, they want to be
> working in The Real Number System, but don't want to need to follow the
> rules of it, so get non-sense.
You've been talking about The Rules for weeks. Can you show us those rules already or... ?
>
> Your question is putting the cart before the horse, we don't DEFINIE
> whether 0.999... == 1 or not, that comes out of the actual definitions
> we use for the more basic things.
Jesus fucking christ. I am asking you if 0.999... == 1 is a theorem, or if the negation of 0.999... == 1 is a theorem in your system.

Why can't you tell me?

> Remember, the axioms that are available come out of the choice of the
> system we choose.
Well that's a backwards way of going about it!

I always start with theorems first.

> Yes, you create a system by choosing the axioms, but once created, that
> choice is fixed for that system.
Which has what to do with anything?

On 8/26/22 7:45 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:38:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Who says I use a "decider" to determine that.
> Oh, OK! So you are openly admitting that you don't have a mechanism for deciding?
>
> So then how do you handle dispatch?
>
>> This seems to be YOUR problem of trying to reduce everything to a
>> 'computation', even when they aren't defined that way.
> Shit-for-brains fucking idiot. This has nothing to do with reduction or computation.
>
> Either YOU (not your computer) can determine that an object is infinite, or you can't. If you can - tell me how!
>
>> That becomes YOUR task to show you can do it that way.
> That seems a bit like burden tennis, don't you think?
>
> YOU are alraedy doing it. YOU are admitting to DOING it.
>
> Tell us how.
>
>> Maybe that it a key flaw in your thought system.
> My system?!? What system?
>
> I am just a debugger...

What is the problem with your system? I can just inspect a value and
tell if it is the value that is infinity or a Real Number, because that
is just how they are defined. ∞ is infinite, and regular numbers are
regular numbers.

I don't use "Objects".

If you want to computify things, then YOU need to figure out how to
define things so you can do that.

You are the one that seems to be having the problem figuring out what
you are doing.

On 8/26/22 7:48 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:41:32 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ∞ just isn't a full member of The Real Number System, with only limited
>> application.
> 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
>
> So it's a non-full member of The Real Number System then. Is that like being half-pregnant?
>
>> If you don't acknowledge the limits of what your definitions can handle,
>> you break your system.
> Yes, I know!
>
> So what are the limits of what lim(x->y)f(x) can handle?!?
>
>> I think this just shows that you don't understand how broken you system
>> might be.
> I think you don't understand that my system is the debugger of YOUR broken system.

No, you system appears not to understand how to handle my system.

I can just say if y is ∞ and it works.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:05:29 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> What is the problem with your system? I can just inspect a value and
> tell if it is the value that is infinity
Ah! So infinity IS a value! So you were lying all along?

> I don't use "Objects".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

So you don't have (Mathematical) object in your system?

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

Fucking idiot.

> If you want to computify things, then YOU need to figure out how to
> define things so you can do that.
I understand that perfectly.

I am just wondering why YOU think YOU are exept from that rule when it comes to computing with Real Numbers.

> You are the one that seems to be having the problem figuring out what
> you are doing.
Idiot. I know precisely what I am doing.

What I am DOING is trying to figure out HOW you are doing arithmetic with "Real numbers" which are NOT computationally defined.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:11:59 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> I can just say if y is ∞ and it works.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

So you have a decider? is(x,y) -> {True, False}

Could you explain to me how your decider is any diffeerent from (x == ∞) -> {True, False} ?

On 8/26/22 8:00 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:53:49 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/26/22 7:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 13:25:11 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Are you talking about the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥ ?
>>>>>
>>>> It depends on which system we are talking about, which you don't seem to
>>>> know, or care about, so you don't know anything useful.
>>> Fucking shit-for-brains idiot!
>>>
>>> That is PRECISELY what I am asking with the QUESTION: (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥
>>>
>>> Are you so incompetent that you are even unable to identify your own damn axiom?!?
>>>
>> So, if you don't know the system your working in, how do you know what
>> to do?
> Well if you "do know the systeme you are working in" why can't you tell me its rules?

I tend to work in the Reals, but the question didn't start with me.

You seem to have forgotten the context of the thread.

>
>
>> This is precisely the problem that wij is having, they want to be
>> working in The Real Number System, but don't want to need to follow the
>> rules of it, so get non-sense.
> You've been talking about The Rules for weeks. Can you show us those rules already or... ?
>
>>
>> Your question is putting the cart before the horse, we don't DEFINIE
>> whether 0.999... == 1 or not, that comes out of the actual definitions
>> we use for the more basic things.
> Jesus fucking christ. I am asking you if 0.999... == 1 is a theorem, or if the negation of 0.999... == 1 is a theorem in your system.
>
> Why can't you tell me?

In The Real Number System, it would be a theorem. The question comes
will wij admit they are working in The Real Number System, and thus need
to accept that fact, and that other things they are trying to do aren't
allowed, or will the admit they aren't working in The Real Number System.

>
>> Remember, the axioms that are available come out of the choice of the
>> system we choose.
> Well that's a backwards way of going about it!
>
> I always start with theorems first.

Hard to work with a Theorem if you don't know the system it is supposed
to be part of.

>
>> Yes, you create a system by choosing the axioms, but once created, that
>> choice is fixed for that system.
> Which has what to do with anything?

Truth.

On 8/26/22 8:15 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:05:29 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What is the problem with your system? I can just inspect a value and
>> tell if it is the value that is infinity
> Ah! So infinity IS a value! So you were lying all along?
>
>> I don't use "Objects".
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> So you don't have (Mathematical) object in your system?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object
>
> Fucking idiot.

So, WHICH definition of "Object" are you using. You seem to keep
changing it.

You are now the one being inconsistent.

Mathematical Objects are not the exact same thing as the objects of a
programming language.

>
>> If you want to computify things, then YOU need to figure out how to
>> define things so you can do that.
> I understand that perfectly.
>
> I am just wondering why YOU think YOU are exept from that rule when it comes to computing with Real Numbers.

But you don't seem to be able to test the "type" of a object to use the
appropriate definition to go with it.

5.25 can be a Real Number

∞ is the symbol that represents infinity, which ISN'T a 'value' in the
Real Number System, but can be use in a few special situations.

>
>> You are the one that seems to be having the problem figuring out what
>> you are doing.
> Idiot. I know precisely what I am doing.
>
> What I am DOING is trying to figure out HOW you are doing arithmetic with "Real numbers" which are NOT computationally defined.

Who says they aren't computationally defined?

The definition of how you do arithmetic with the Reals is all in the
body of knowledge that is out there, and is too vast to just post in an
usenet posting.

On 8/26/22 8:19 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:11:59 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I can just say if y is ∞ and it works.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> So you have a decider? is(x,y) -> {True, False}
>
> Could you explain to me how your decider is any diffeerent from (x == ∞) -> {True, False} ?

I have said what I have said and you have shown yourself too stupid to
understand.

You seem to not understand how context works.

To know if y is ∞, I need to know what y actually IS.

If I don't then I need to express results conditionally based on what it
might be.

somehow, you don't seem to understand this.

is(x,y) needs to know what x and y are to be evaluated.

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 14:27:52 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Jesus fucking christ. I am asking you if 0.999... == 1 is a theorem, or if the negation of 0.999... == 1 is a theorem in your system.
> >
> > Why can't you tell me?
> In The Real Number System, it would be a theorem.
Holy fucking shitballs you imprecise moron! They are BOTH theorems! I am asking you WHICH "it" is YOUR theorem.

is "IT" the theorem ( 0.999... == 1); or is is "IT" the theorem not(0.999... == 1)

Can you bind "IT" to a value!?!

> The question comes
> will wij admit they are working in The Real Number System, and thus need
> to accept that fact, and that other things they are trying to do aren't
> allowed, or will the admit they aren't working in The Real Number System.
Shit-for-brains fucking idiot. You are constantly doing things which are "not allowed" IN The Real Number System.

You are doing arithmetic in R. Which is "not allowed".

Does that mean you are lying about working in The Real Number System?

> > I always start with theorems first.
> Hard to work with a Theorem if you don't know the system it is supposed
> to be part of.
Nothing hard about it! It's exactly how the Real World works!

I don't need to know which universe I am in, in order to accept gravity as a theorem.

> > Which has what to do with anything?
> Truth.
Truth? Is that like God?

Are we in alt.religion or comp.theory ?!?!

Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 03:12:28 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:

>> > Probably because I see "0.999... = 1" as a proposition with an
>> > unspecified semantic value and you don't.
>>
>> Maybe tomorrow you will remember why I declined to explain this entirely
>> conventional piece of notation to you.

> Well, it's tomorrow, and my drunk-questions were spot on - I have no
> idea what was confusing you.

So you still want me to waste time typing out standard material from
goodness know how many sources? No. Go read them.

> I am only asking the question precisely because I am aware of at least
> two conventions. Maybe you aren't as well informed as I am?
>
> Perhaps what you were trying to say all along is that your convention
> is more conventional? OK, have it! But you still havent told me WHICH
> convention (that is more conventional) is YOUR convention.
>
> Are you talking about the convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊤ OR the
> convention (0.999... = 1) ↔ ⊥ ?

If you don't know what 0.999... = 1 means, you know where you can find
out.

The question is what /you/ mean. That will remain a mystery because you
won't say more than report, as stated, silly uncontested facts like
"0.999... + epsilon = 1" is true.

--
Ben.